High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2010-05-21Revision petition disposed of; no interference ...

Prabhavathi @ Leela v. State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1577 of 2010

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: V.K.MOHANAN
Judgment Date: 2010-05-21
Court Decision / Holding: Crl.R.P. disposed of; no interference with the order of the lower appellate court and the trial court; directed the revision petitioner to approach the trial court; parties to appear before the trial court on 25.7.2010 for further proceedings.
Final Disposition: Revision petition disposed of; no interference with lower court orders; directed to approach the trial court for final determination of pending questions regarding shared household and occupancy.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Prabhavathi @ Leela, W/o Late Kesavan Sarovaram, House No. IV/147 Kanjiramkulam P.O.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Kala, Therivila Puthen Veedu, Kottukal, Nellimoodu Po Thiruvananthapuram
Rajesh S/O Late Kesavan, Sreemurugan, Pottakulam Kanjiramkulam, Thiruvananthapuram
Biju S/O Kesavan, Cherukari Channelkara Veedu Thirupuram, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.S.M.Prem
• Smt.K.P.Santhi
• Sri.P.K.Nijoy
• Smt.Nisha G.Tharamal

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.M.R.Venugopal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1577 of 2010) heard by Justice V.K. Mohanan, relating to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The revision petitioner, Prabhavathi alias Leela, wife of the late Kesavan Sarovaram, challenges an interim order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara (CMP No.8784/2009) and the subsequent judgment in Crl.A. No.753 of 2009 of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which restrained the respondents from dispossessing the aggrieved person (Kala) and her child from House No. IV/147, Kanjiramkulam, pending final decision. The respondents include Kala (the daughter-in-law and aggrieved person under the DV Act), Rajesh (Kala’s husband?), and Biju. The lower appellate court had confirmed the trial court’s interim residence order, while noting that the core question whether the house is a shared household of the aggrieved party or belongs exclusively to the revision petitioner remains a matter of evidence to be adjudicated in the main proceedings. The High Court observes that the issues are primarily factual and evidentiary, and finds no merit in disturbing the concurrent orders. The petition is disposed of, relegating the revision petitioner to pursue the main trial, and directing appearance on 25.7.2010 for further proceedings. The marriage between Kala and Rajesh is undisputed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The revision petitioner contends that the house in question is not a shared household under the DV Act and that the interim residence order unjustifiably restrains her from dispossessing Kala and her child. She argues that the main dispute—whether the house is shared or exclusively hers—requires evidence at the trial, and the interim orders should be stayed or limited in scope until the main proceedings determine rightful occupancy and ownership. The petitioner emphasizes the undisputed nature of the marriage between Kala and Rajesh and asserts that the lower courts should not premptively displace her from the property without a full evidentiary record.

Contentions of Respondents

Kala and the other respondents assert the protection of the aggrieved person under the DV Act and maintain that the residence order ensures Kala and her child’s right to reside in the house pending the main case. They rely on the lower appellate court’s reasoning that the matter involves factual questions about the nature of the household and occupancy, which require adjudication in the main proceedings. They argue that altering the interim order at this stage would prejudice Kala’s safety and residence rights.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
S.R.Bhadra and Another v. Tharuna Bhadra	2007(3) KLT SN 8 Case No.9	Mentioned Only	Cited by the lower appellate court in the context of background material; High Court does not rely on it to overrule or distinguish it in the present decision.
Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala	2009(1) KLT 179	Mentioned Only	Cited as a decision considered by the lower appellate court; High Court does not overturn or apply it in the instant revision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Prabhavathi @ Leela v. State of Kerala & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1577 of 2010 -------------------------------(CRA.753/2009 of SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM CMP.8784/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- PRABHAVATHI @ LEELA, W/O.LATE KESAVAN SAROVARAM, HOUSE NO.1V/147 KANJIRAMKULAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KALA, THERIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTUKAL, NELLIMOODU PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RAJESH S/O. LATE KESAVAN, SREEMURUGAN, POTTAKULAM KANJIRAMKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. BIJU S/O.KESAVAN, CHERUKARI CHANNELKARA VEEDU THIRUPURAM, THIRUVNANATHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **--------------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No. 1577 of 2010 --------------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of May, 2010** ## **O R D E R** The second respondent in C.M.P.No.8784 of 2009 is the revision petitioner herein as she is aggrieved by the order dated 1.10.2009 in CMP No.8784 of 2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara and the judgment dated 29.3.2010 in Crl.A.No.753 of 2009 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Proceedings in the trial court were initiated by the aggrieved person, who is the wife of the first respondent in the trial court and the daughter-in-law of the second respondent, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'), claiming Protection orders under Section 18, Residence orders under Section 19, Monetary reliefs under Sections 20 and Compensation Orders under Section 22 of the Act. ## **Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010** **:-2-:** According to the aggrieved party (Smt.Kala), the marriage between her and the first respondent was conducted on 16.5.2008 in Nellimoodu Gurukumar Auditorium as per Hindu custom and at the time of marriage, 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to her and 6 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given to the first respondent and after marriage, they came to House No.IV/147, Sarovaram, Kanjiramkulam Post and started residing there as husband and wife along with respondents 2 and 3, who are the revision petitioner herein as well as the fourth respondent herein- Biju, S/o.late Kesavan. So, the grievance of the complainantKala is mainly against her mother-in-law -Prabhavathy and her son- Biju. According to the lower appellate court, serious allegations are made in the affidavit in support of the petition filed before the trial court. 3. It is relevant to note that the admitted fact is that the aggrieved person is the daughter-in-law of the ## **Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010** **:-3-:** revision petitioner herein. The lower appellate court, after considering the rival pleadings and materials on record and on considering the judgments of the Apex Court in **S.R.Bhadra and Another** v. **Tharuna Bhadra** [2007(3) KLT SN 8 Case No.9] and also the decision of this Court reported in **Prabhakaran** v. **State of Kerala** [2009(1) KLT 179], held that the order of the trial court granting residence order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the aggrieved person and her child from house No.IV/147 of Kanjiramkulam Panchayath until further orders is absolutely correct and legal and thereby, the lower appellate court confirmed the interim order passed by the trial court. While disposing of the appeal, the lower appellate court specifically made clear that the order passed therein will not be a bar for the lower court to consider the question whether the house mentioned above is a shared household of the aggrieved person or the house belongs to the revision petitioner ## **Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010** ## **:-4-:** exclusively and the other respondents or the aggrieved person has any right of residence in that house etc. on the basis of the evidence to be adduced at the time of deciding the main case. Accordingly, the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on **25.7.2010** . 4. Going by the judgment of the lower appellate court and the order passed by the trial court, I am of the view that the question as to whether House No.IV/147 of Kanjiramkulam Panchayath is a shared household of the aggrieved person or the house belongs to the revision petitioner exclusively and the other respondents or the aggrieved person has any right of residence in the said house is a matter of evidence. It is clear from the order of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court that the said orders are interim in nature and subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the trial court. Therefore, I find no merit in this revision petition to interfere with the order of the lower appellate ## **Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010** **:-5-:** court and the trial court, especially, when the marriage between the second respondent and the third respondent is beyond any dispute. Therefore, the Crl.R.P. is disposed of relegating the revision petitioner to approach the trial court. This Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. **V.K.Mohanan, Judge.** MBS/ ## **Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010** **:-6-: V.K.MOHANAN, J.** -------------------------------------------Crl.A.NO. OF 200 ----------------------------------J U D G M E N T ## **Crl.R.PNO.1577 of 2010** ## **:-7-:** DATED: -2- 2010