//
you're reading...
legal issues

In this case there is the substantial evidence of PW1 and other witnesses and also contemporary documentary evidence to show that the entrustment of the amount as well as the gold ornaments. Admittedly, the marriage was on 3.7.2005 and the husband of the aggrieved person, who is none other than the son of the revision petitioners, died on 26.12.2006 within a period of more or less 18 months from the date of the marriage. It is also an admitted fact that till the death of the son of the revision petitioners there were no dispute in the family. If that be so, in the absence of any positive evidence to show that the money and the gold ornaments which entrusted at the time of the marriage were exclusively within the possession of the deceased, it cannot be said that the allegation of misappropriation against the revision petitioners would not lie.

"North Hampton is a Domestic violence fre...

Image via Wikipedia

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 770 of 2011()

1. T.R.BALACHANDRAN, AGED 59 YEARS,
 ... Petitioner
2. SOBHANA BALACHANDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS,

 Vs

1. SREEJA, AGED 24 YEARS,
 ... Respondent

 For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

 For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :16/03/2011

 O R D E R
 V.K.MOHANAN, J
 -------------------------------
 Crl.R.P.NO.770 OF 2011
 -------------------------------------------------
 Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011.

 ORDER

 The revision petition is preferred by the respondents in a

proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violation Act challenging the judgment dated

6.12.2010 in Crl.Appeal No.340/2009 of the Court of Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc), Mavelikkara

against the judgment dated 22.4.2009 in M.C.No.17/2008 of the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Haripad.

 2. The revision petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in

MC.No.17/2008, which is a proceedings instituted under Section

12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, at

the instance of the respondent herein who is the wife of the son

of the revision petitioners. The first respondent who is the

aggrieved person preferred the petition before the Magistrate

court alleging domestic violence against the aggrieved person

and also misappropriation of her gold ornaments and cash by the

respondents. The marriage of the aggrieved person with son of

the respondents are not disputed. The husband of the aggrieved

person died on 26.12.2006. According to the aggrieved person

Crl.R.P.NO.770 OF 2011 2

at the time of marriage her parents gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- to

the respondents. It is also the case of the aggrieved person that

at the time of marriage gold ornaments worth 176 gms was

entrusted with the respondents but the same are also

misappropriated by them. During the trial PWs. 1 to 4 were

examined and Ext.P1 agreement dated 19.6.2005 were marked

from the side of the petitioner. Ext.X1 to X3 were also marked as

witness Exhibits. The trial court after consideration the

allegation and the defence taken by the respondent and after

considering materials and evidence on record allowed the

petition in part. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to

pay Rs.2,28,800/- being the value of 176 gms gold ornaments to

the petitioner within one month from the date of that order.

Respondents are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- being the

amount received by the respondent from the parents of the

aggrieved person within one month from the date of that order.

The learned Magistrate while allowing the above two prayer, the

prayer of the aggrieved person for realisation of the value of

house hold articles and presentation articles and for realisation

of compensations are dis-allowed.

 3. Against the above judgment and direction of the learned

Magistrate though an appeal was filed by the revision petitioners

Crl.R.P.NO.770 OF 2011 3

herein, the learned judge of the appellate court, by judgment

dated 6.12.2010 in Crl. Appeal No.340/2009, dismissed the

appeal confirming the orders of the learned Magistrate. It is the

above judgment of the courts below challenge in this revision

petition.

 4. I have heard Sri.S.Shanavas Khan the learned counsel

appearing for the revision petitioner. I have perused the order

impugned.

 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

submitted that there is no evidence to show that the revision

petitioner herein had misappropriated gold ornaments and also

the amount. Taking me through the judgments of the trial court

as well as the appellate court, the learned counsel has pointed

out that even according to the respondent/the aggrieved person

the amounts and the gold ornaments were entrusted with not

exclusively with the revision petitioners but to the deceased

husband of the aggrieved person as well. Therefore, according

to the learned counsel the aggrieved person miserably failed to

establish that the revision petitioner has misappropriated the

amount as well as the gold ornaments.

 6. I am unable to sustain the above contention, against the

findings of the courts below as well as the appellate court

Crl.R.P.NO.770 OF 2011 4

especially at this stage since while exercising the revisional

jurisdiction , this Court is not expected to re-appreciate the

evidence and materials and to interfere with the orders of the

trial court as well as the appellate court. In this case there is the

substantial evidence of PW1 and other witnesses and also

contemporary documentary evidence to show that the

entrustment of the amount as well as the gold ornaments.

Admittedly, the marriage was on 3.7.2005 and the husband of

the aggrieved person, who is none other than the son of the

revision petitioners, died on 26.12.2006 within a period of more

or less 18 months from the date of the marriage. It is also an

admitted fact that till the death of the son of the revision

petitioners there were no dispute in the family. If that be so, in

the absence of any positive evidence to show that the money and

the gold ornaments which entrusted at the time of the marriage

were exclusively within the possession of the deceased, it cannot

be said that the allegation of misappropriation against the

revision petitioners would not lie. On the other hand, the trial

court as well as the appellate court after appreciation of the

evidence, found that the allegation is correct and proved and

accordingly issued the order with the direction as indicated

earlier. Considering the very object of the enactment and when

Crl.R.P.NO.770 OF 2011 5

especially there no illegality or perversity with impugned order

this Court will not be justified in interfering with the concurrent

findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

 7. Therefore, I find no merit in the revision petition and

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

 The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted

that sufficient time may be granted to the revision petitioner to

comply with the orders issued by the trial court. Accordingly,

the revision petitioners are granted two months time from today

to comply with the direction issued by the trial court which

confirmed by the appellate court. It is made clear that the trial

court is free to take coercive steps if the revision petitioners fails

to comply with the order of the trial court within two months

from today.

 The Crl. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

 V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

pm

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,438 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: