Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 547 (KER)

E. K Sudha, D/O P. A Narayani v. K. R. Ajith

2026-05-19

G Girish

body2026
ORDER : G. Girish, J. The various reliefs granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam in CMP No.1822/2007, a petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short), and the modified reliefs granted by the Additional Sessions Court IV, Kollam, in the appeals preferred against the verdict of the learned Magistrate, are under challenge in these revision petitions filed at the instance of both parties. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred hereinafter in their respective capacities as petitioner and respondents as they figure in the proceedings before the Trial Court. 2. The petitioner and the 1st respondent, after their marriage on 17.03.1995, resided together at Saudi Arabia, the place of their employment. The petitioner returned to India in connection with her delivery of their elder daughter on 14.07.1997. She was not able to return to Saudi Arabia due to the congenital mental illness and heart disease suffered by the child. While so, the 2nd daughter of the petitioner was born on 15.08.2003. The petitioner would contend that she was gifted with 70 sovereigns of gold and an amount of Rs.2 lakh at the time of her marriage, and that a considerable portion of the aforesaid assets were made use of for the purchase of 15 cents of land in the name of the 1st respondent and for the construction of a house by name ‘KR Sadanam’ in that property. The petitioner claimed to have been residing in the aforesaid house along with the 1st respondent till issues arose between them in the year 2004, when a lady claiming to be the 1st wife of the 1st respondent arrived there with a child aged 15 years, whom she claimed to be procreated by the 1st respondent. The petitioner would further contend that the respondents 2 and 3, who are the mother and the sister respectively of the 1st respondent, were also brought to the above house by the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, she had given 30 sovereigns of gold to the husband of the 3rd respondent, which was not returned so far. The petitioner would further allege that the respondents 1 to 3 perpetrated physical and mental violence against her after the issues arose between them. According to the petitioner, she had given 30 sovereigns of gold to the husband of the 3rd respondent, which was not returned so far. The petitioner would further allege that the respondents 1 to 3 perpetrated physical and mental violence against her after the issues arose between them. The petitioner had approached the Family Court concerned for maintenance against the 1st respondent and for prohibitory orders against the respondents 2 and 3. She also filed a complaint against the 1st respondent for the commission of offence under Section 498A . After knowing about the illicit relationship of the 1st respondent with another lady, the petitioner sought the relief of judicial separation with the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is said to have been forcefully evicted by the respondents from the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’, where she had been residing along with her children. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner approached the Protection Officer seeking reliefs under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Protection Officer made over the above complaint to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, and accordingly, the proceedings commenced against the respondents. 3. In the counter filed, the respondents strongly disputed the contentions raised by the petitioner. The maintainability of the petition was challenged stating the reason that the Act was not in force at the time when the domestic violence involved in this case commenced. The respondents further contended that the petitioner had voluntarily left the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’. According to the respondents, the petitioner instituted various litigations at the instance of her co-brother by name Devarajan. The respondents further contended that the petitioner is not entitled to have residence in the above house by name ‘KR Sadanam’ since she had purchased landed property with house in her name at Chathannoor in the year 2002. The claim of maintenance by the petitioner is also resisted by the 1st respondent stating the reason that she is a Pharmacist earning Rs.5000/- per month. The 1st respondent disputed the financial capacity to provide maintenance as claimed by the petitioner. The 1st respondent denied the allegation about the illicit relationship with another lady, and contended that it is the petitioner who is having a close relationship with her co-brother. The 1st respondent disputed the financial capacity to provide maintenance as claimed by the petitioner. The 1st respondent denied the allegation about the illicit relationship with another lady, and contended that it is the petitioner who is having a close relationship with her co-brother. According to the respondents, the family property and the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’ have been transferred to the elder daughter of the 2nd respondent. With the aforesaid contentions, the respondents strongly opposed the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. 4. Before the Trial Court, the petitioner tendered evidence as PW1 and brought on record 17 documents as Exts. P1 to P17. From the part of the respondents, 3 witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3, and 4 documents were marked as Exts.D1 to D4. Two third party documents were marked as Exts.X1 and X2. 5. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the respondents perpetrated domestic violence upon the petitioner. The learned Magistrate also found that the petitioner is entitled to have residence at the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’. Accordingly, the respondents were restrained by a protection order from committing any domestic violence and dispossessing the petitioner from the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’. The learned Magistrate also restrained respondents 2 and 3 from trespassing into the above house and from committing any acts detrimental to the peaceful enjoyment of the said house by the petitioner. The Trial Court further directed the 1st respondent to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month as rent to the petitioner from 05.01.2006 onwards till the petitioner is accommodated in the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’. The reliefs of maintenance and compensation claimed by the petitioner were disallowed by the learned Magistrate. 6. In the appeals preferred by both parties against the aforesaid verdict of the Trial Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concurred with the finding of the Trial Court about the domestic violence perpetrated upon the petitioner by the respondents. The Appellate Court also upheld the finding of the Trial Court that the petitioner is entitled to reside in the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’, and that the 1st respondent is bound to pay rent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner till she is accommodated in the aforesaid house. The Appellate Court also upheld the finding of the Trial Court that the petitioner is entitled to reside in the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’, and that the 1st respondent is bound to pay rent at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner till she is accommodated in the aforesaid house. In addition to the aforesaid reliefs, the Appellate Court directed the 1st respondent to pay an amount of Rs.7000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner and her daughter. However, the order of the learned Magistrate restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from entering into the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’, was set aside by the Appellate Court. So also, the Appellate Court confirmed the order of the Trial Court disallowing compensation to the petitioner. 7. The aforesaid verdict of the Appellate Court is under challenge in these revision petitions. In Crl.R.P No.1240/2015 the petitioner would challenge the order of the Appellate Court modifying the residence order passed by the Trial Court. In Crl.R.P No.1316/2017, the petitioner challenges the order of the Appellate Court confirming the order of the Trial Court disallowing the monetary claims and compensation. In Crl.R.P No.1317/2017, the respondents challenge the verdict of the Appellate Court granting various reliefs to the petitioner. 8. Though the respondents were represented by their counsel during the initial stages of the proceedings in these revision petitions, it was submitted later on by the learned counsel representing the respondents that they have relinquished the vakalath of the respondents. The respondents did not care to engage any other counsel to represent them. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 10. It is to be noted that the evidence on record has been subjected to detailed evaluation by the courts below, and there are concurrent findings on the fact that the petitioner was subjected to domestic violence at the instance of the respondents 1 to 3. So also, it has been found by the courts below that the petitioner is entitled to have residence in the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’ which is her shared household. So also, it has been found by the courts below that the petitioner is entitled to have residence in the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’ which is her shared household. Though the Trial Court refused to grant maintenance to the petitioner stating the reason that the Family Court concerned had already allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for the petitioner and Rs.400/- and Rs.300/- respectively, for her daughters, the Appellate Court found the aforesaid amount grossly inadequate, and accordingly directed the 1st respondent to pay an amount of Rs.7000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner and her daughters. It was made clear that the aforesaid amount was in addition to the maintenance already granted by the Family Court concerned. The Appellate Court also held that the petitioner is entitled to get an amount of Rs.3000/- per month from the 1st respondent towards meeting the expenses of rent till she is accommodated in the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’. 11. The concurrent findings on facts by the courts below about the entitlement of the petitioner to have the reliefs of protection, maintenance and residence, are not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional powers. This is because of the reason that there is absolutely no illegality, impropriety or error in the aforesaid findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the modification made by the Appellate Court, setting aside the order of the Trial Court restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from trespassing into the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’, is totally untenable. It is contended that the aforesaid order of restraint imposed by the Trial Court was highly necessary to ensure the peaceful residence of the petitioner and her daughters in the aforesaid house. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Appellate Court had wrongly understood the scope of proviso to clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act, and erroneously held that the order passed by the Trial Court restraining the entry of respondents 2 and 3 into the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’, is hit by the aforesaid proviso. 12. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Appellate Court had wrongly understood the scope of proviso to clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act, and erroneously held that the order passed by the Trial Court restraining the entry of respondents 2 and 3 into the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’, is hit by the aforesaid proviso. 12. It is true that clause (b) of Section 19 of the Act pertains to an order directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household, and that the proviso would make it clear that such an order cannot be passed against any person who is a woman. In the case on hand, the Appellate Court had held that the respondents 2 and 3 are also having right over the aforesaid house by name ‘KR Sadanam’ as their shared household since they are related to the 1st respondent as mother and sister respectively, and the petitioner has also admitted the fact that they have resided in that house in their respective capacities as mother and sister of the 1st respondent. Though the order passed by the Trial Court is against the entry of the respondents 2 and 3 into the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’, it would in effect amount to an order directing them to remove themselves from that house since it is the admitted case of the petitioner that the above respondents are residing in that house after forcefully evicting her. Therefore, the Appellate Court cannot be found to be at fault for setting aside the above order of the Trial Court restraining the entry of respondents 2 and 3 into the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’. That being so, the challenge against the above modification made by the Appellate Court in the residence order granted in favour of the petitioner, is devoid of merit. 13. As regards the order passed by the courts below directing payment at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month by the 1st respondent towards meeting the expenses of rent of the petitioner, it requires a slight modification of enhancement with effect from 1st January, 2025, taking into account the fact that the dip in money value, hike in price index, inflation etc., which occurred since the date of coming into effect of the aforesaid order, cannot be ignored by this Court. It is to be noted that the aforesaid rent was directed to be paid with effect from 05.01.2006, which is more than two decades prior to this day. So also, the Appellate Court had upheld the aforesaid order on 21.02.2015, which is more than one decade ago, as on today. Having regard to the above time lag, I am of the view that the aforesaid amount of Rs.3000/- granted by the courts below is liable to be enhanced to Rs.6000/- per month with effect from 1st January, 2025. 14. The same issue relating to the huge time lag warranting the enhancement of the quantum of amount is there in the case of the maintenance awarded by the Appellate Court. Having regard to the fiscal factors which I have mentioned in paragraph 13 above, the amount of maintenance granted by the Appellate Court is liable to be enhanced with effect from 01.01.2025 to Rs.12000/- per month, from Rs.7000/- per month as originally granted on 21.02.2015. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to have maintenance at the rate of Rs.7000/- per month from the date of CMP No.1822/2007 which she filed before the Trial Court, till 31.12.2024. From 01.01.2025 onwards the petitioner will be entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.12000/- per month from the 1st respondent. 15. The monetary claims of compensation of the petitioner are related to the alleged act of the respondents misappropriating her gold ornaments, and also making use of her money and other assets for the purchase of 15 cents of land and the construction of the house by name ‘KR Sadanam’ therein. As regards the aforesaid claims, the courts below found that it could not be allowed due to absence of evidence. The findings of the courts below in the above regard cannot be faulted except for 7 sovereigns of gold ornaments which the 3rd respondent is said to have not returned to the petitioner, as revealed from the document relied on by the respondents as Ext.D1. Ext.D1 is a letter sent by the petitioner to the 1st respondent in which it is stated that out of the gold ornaments which the 3rd respondent obtained from her, all those items, except 7 sovereigns of gold, had been returned. It is true that the aforesaid document is a letter written by the petitioner herein. Ext.D1 is a letter sent by the petitioner to the 1st respondent in which it is stated that out of the gold ornaments which the 3rd respondent obtained from her, all those items, except 7 sovereigns of gold, had been returned. It is true that the aforesaid document is a letter written by the petitioner herein. However, the respondents have relied on the aforesaid letter before the courts below to contend that the 3rd respondent had already returned the gold ornaments obtained from the petitioner. Since the contents of the above document still disclose the liability of the 3rd respondent to give back 7 sovereigns of gold to the petitioner, the respondents cannot be heard to say that the aforesaid indication in Ext.D1 has to be ignored. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 3 are liable to either return the above 7 sovereigns of gold to the petitioner or to make payment of its value to the petitioner. 16. Subject to the above modifications in the reliefs, these revision petitions stand disposed of as follows:- The common judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Court IV, Kollam in Crl.Appeal No.168/2011 and 183/2011 is upheld with the following modifications: a) The payment of rent directed to be given by the 1st respondent to the petitioner is enhanced at the rate of Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month from 01.01.2025. It is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to receive the payment of rent at the rate of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month from 05.01.2006 till 31.12.2024. b) The maintenance amount ordered to be paid by the Appellate Court is enhanced to Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) per month with effect from 01.01.2025. The amount of maintenance Rs.7000/- ordered by the Appellate Court shall be for the period from the date of filing of C.M.P No.1822/2007 till 31.12.2024. c) The respondents 1 and 3 are directed to return forthwith the 7 sovereigns of gold obtained from the petitioner. In the event of failure to abide by the above direction, the petitioner will be entitled to realise the value of 7 sovereigns of gold as on the date of actual payment, from the respondents 1 and 3 jointly and severally.