K.K. Narayanan vs Lathika. K.

P. Ubaid, J.—The husband is aggrieved by the orders obtained by his wife in a proceeding brought under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act). He married her in November 1997, and a son born in their wedlock, has now become major. She has been residing separately from the husband since May 2004. Alleging cruelty and desertion, she brought M.C. 9/2007 before the Family Court, Kozhikode for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The husband entered appearance in the said proceeding and made vigorous contest. However in the said proceeding the Family Court, Kozhikode granted maintenance to the wife at the rate of 1,000/- per month, and to the minor son at the rate of 750/- per month. The said order was passed on 21.4.2008. After obtaining such an order, the wife brought proceeding under the PWDV Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Perambra, claiming various reliefs like protection order, residence order, compensation order and maintenance order. In the said proceeding also the husband entered appearance and made contest. He contended that he has already assigned 12 cents of property in the name of his minor son, and they have been residing peaceably in the said house to which he is not given access. He also contended that the wife has sufficient income as a teacher, and that he does not have much income to provide as claimed by the wife.

The learned Magistrate conducted enquiry in the proceeding brought under the PWDV Act, and recorded evidence. The wife examined herself as PW1, and the husband examined himself as RW1. The wife proved Exts. P1 to P3 documents, and the husband proved Exts. B1 to B6 documents. On an appreciation of the evidence the learned Magistrate found that in view of the strained relation ship and the genuine apprehension of the wife, she is entitled to get protection order, maintenance order, residence order etc. Accordingly, the trial court passed orders in M.C. 24/2008 on 17/06/2010, restraining the husband from committing any act of domestic violence against the wife, restraining him from causing any disturbance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the shared household by the wife, restraining the husband from dispossessing the wife from the shared household, directing the husband to pay of 50,000/- as compensation to the wife, and also directing him to pay maintenance to her at the rate of 1,500/- per month.

Aggrieved by the said order, the husband preferred appeal before the court of Session Kozhikode as Crl.A. 433/2010. In appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge, concurred with the findings of the trial court except on the question of compensation. Accordingly, the last part of the order directing payment of compensation was set aside in appeal, but the other orders were maintained as per judgment dated 10.01.2011. The husband is still aggrieved, and he has now brought this revision challenging the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the courts below.

This revision came up for consideration along with two other connected revisions. Aggrieved by the original order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C. 9/2007, the husband brought RPFC 120/2012. After obtaining orders under the PWDV Act, the wife brought another claim under Section 127 Cr.P.C., for enhancement in maintenance, as C.M.P. 142/2013. The said proceeding was also vigorously contested by the husband on the contention that the wife in fact does not require any enhancement in maintenance because she is employed, and she has her own income. Anyway in the said proceeding the Family Court enhanced the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife from 1,000/- to 3,000/-. The amount awarded to the child initially at the rate of 750/- per month was enhanced to 4,000/- per month on a special consideration that he requires good amount for education purposes. Aggrieved by the said order in C.M.P. 142/2013, the husband brought another revision as R.P.F.C. 268/2014. Those two revisions are pending consideration.

On hearing both sides in this proceedings, and on a perusal of the entire case records I find that the husband cannot in fact be said to be aggrieved by any of the orders under challenge. I find that the wife has a genuine grievance against her husband, and evidence satisfies the court that the husband has in fact deserted the wife and child. However he made a request to permit periodic visits in the shared household to see the son. This request cannot in fact be objected by the other side. He cannot be totally kept away from the shared household because he is a father, though the petitioner would not accept him as her husband. He will have to see his own son, and this right cannot be denied. He will have to be permitted to make visits in the shared household without causing any disturbance to the wife or without in any manner violating the residence order and the protection order granted by the court.

As regards the maintenance order granted under the PWDV Act I find that the trial court granted such an order on the finding that she requires reasonably for her maintenance, and what is already granted by the Family Court may not meet her requirements. The orders obtained by the wife under 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C. 9/2007 were considered by the learned Magistrate, and 1,500/- per month was granted in addition to what is granted by the Family Court. Claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was brought in 2007, but PWDV Act proceeding was decided in June 2010. The amount of maintenance granted by the trial court in the PWDV Act proceeding cannot be said to be unreasonable. I find that the said order will have to be maintained. Of course, this order will be considered while deciding R.P.F.C. 268/2014 bought by the husband.

As regards protection order or residence order the husband cannot be said to be aggrieved in the given factual situation where he has already left the place, and he is not interested in having the matrimony restored. The last part of the order passed by the trial court granting compensation stands already set aside by the appellate court. Thus I find no reason for interference in the orders passed by the courts below under the provisions of the PWDV Act. However the revision petitioner is permitted to make periodic visits in the shared household on every Sunday between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. to see his son, without in any manner violating the protection order or the residence order granted by the court below.

In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.