Vasantha Kumari vs L. Sruthi Padman, S.V. Sabari Gireesh, Sukumaran Nair and State of Kerala

V.K. Mohanan, J.—This revision petition is preferred by the 2nd respondent, who is the mother of the 1st respondent in M.C. No. 194/09 and C.M.P. No. 2564/09 therein, which are proceedings instituted under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after called the "Act"), challenging the order of the learned Magistrate dated 6.10.2009 and the judgment dated 20.8.2010 of the Court of Sessions, Trivandrum, in Crl. A. No. 754/09.

The 1st respondent who is the aggrieved person filed a petition u/s 12 of the Act, claiming relief u/s 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act and accordingly M.C. No. 194/09 was instituted. During the pendancy of the above M.C., the aggrieved person preferred C.M.P. No. 2564/09, supported by an affidavit, u/s 23 of the Act and the learned Magistrate granted 5 reliefs by way of interim order. Against the above order, the respondents therein preferred Crl. A. No. 754/09 and by the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal only in part and except the order of maintenance issued by the trial court, all other directions are confirmed subject to the right of the appellants, including the revision petitioner, to agitate the same in the main proceedings pending before the trial court. It is against the above order, the revision petitioner who is the mother of the husband of the aggrieved person, preferred this revision petition.

I have heard Adv. Sri. Santhan V. Nair, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and I have carefully perused the orders impugned.

Going by the orders impugned, I find no reason to entertain this revision petition, especially as the main matter is pending before the trial court. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is against the direction issued under item No. 5 of the impugned order of the learned Magistrate, by which the revision petitioner as well as the husband of the aggrieved person are restrained from alienating and encumbering the shared house hold building T.C. No. 22/373(1), Hill View, Konchiravila, Manacadu.

Though an appeal was filed against the above orders of the learned Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed all the directions except, the second direction and the revision petitioner as well as the other appellants are directed to approach the learned Magistrate and to have a decision on the main petition pending before the trial court. Considering the very object of the above enactment, I am of the view that the interim order issued by the learned Magistrate is not liable to be interfered with, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this Court at this stage, especially when the main petition is pending before the learned Magistrate. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is against the 5th direction of the learned Magistrate. Any interference with respect to the fifth direction issued by the learned Magistrate is likely to adversely affect the aggrieved person and if the respondent is permitted to dispose the shared house, the aggrieved person will be put in nowhere, which is not contemplated by the relevant provisions of the Act. Unless there is a direction as item No. 5 in the order of the learned Magistrate and in case the court below finally found that the aggrieved person is entitled to continue in the shared house hold, such relief cannot be materialised and it is the duty of the court to preserve the property to grant absolute relief. Whatever contentions the revision petitioner has got, she can raise the same before the trial court.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that, there is change of circumstances after the issuance of the interim order and therefore the orders are liable to be set aside. If the revision petitioner has got a case that, there is any change of circumstances after the interim order, the revision petitioner can very well approach the learned Magistrate by invoking Section 25(2) of the above Act and if such petition is filed, it is for the learned Magistrate to dispose the same on merit.

In the result, I find no merit in this revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed but subject to the above observations.