//
you're reading...
legal issues

The sole respondent, who is none other than the husband of the aggrieved person in an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to for short as ‘the Act’ only) is the revision petitioner. By order dated 19.5.2010 in M.P.No.6596 of 2008, the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thrissur allowed the petition in part granting the following reliefs, in favour of the aggrieved person/wife:- “1. The respondent is restrained from uttering obscene words and from making defamatory statements against the petitioner and also from committing any acts of violence in her working place. 2. The respondent is directed to remove himself from the shared house situated in the ‘A’ schedule property. 3. The respondent is restrained from committing any mischief to the ‘B’ schedule items kept in the ‘A’ schedule house. 4. The respondent is restrained from alienating or from encumbering the property having an extent of 6= cents comprised in survey No.598/1 of Thrissur village.”

Photographed by Adv. Ranjith Xavier Attokaran ...

Image via Wikipedia

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 338 of 2011()

1. VINCENT CHIRAYATH, AGED 57 YEARS,
 ... Petitioner

 Vs

1. DR.P.L.MARY, AGED 55 YEARS,
 ... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

3. THE UNION OF INDIA,

 For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

 For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI

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

 Dated :11/02/2011

 O R D E R
 V.K.MOHANAN,J.
 ----------------------------------------------------------
 Crl.R.P.No. 338 of 2011
 ---------------------------------------------------------
 Dated this the 11th day of February,2011

 O R D E R

 The sole respondent, who is none other than the

husband of the aggrieved person in an application filed under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to for short as 'the Act' only) is

the revision petitioner. By order dated 19.5.2010 in

M.P.No.6596 of 2008, the court of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate-I, Thrissur allowed the petition in part granting the

following reliefs, in favour of the aggrieved person/wife:-

 "1. The respondent is restrained from uttering obscene words
 and from making defamatory statements against the petitioner
 and also from committing any acts of violence in her working
 place.
 2. The respondent is directed to remove himself from the
 shared house situated in the 'A' schedule property.
 3. The respondent is restrained from committing any mischief
 to the 'B' schedule items kept in the 'A' schedule house.
 4. The respondent is restrained from alienating or from
 encumbering the property having an extent of 6= cents
 comprised in survey No.598/1 of Thrissur village."

 2. Aggrieved by the above order of the trial court, the

petitioner herein had preferred an appeal before the Sessions

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-2-:

Court, and by judgment dated 22.10.2010 in Crl.A.No.319 of

2010, the court of Sessions Judge, Thrissur dismissed the

above appeal. Thus, the present revision petition is preferred

by the husband (hereinafter referred to for short as 'the

petitioner' only) who is the appellant in the court below and

the respondent in the trial court, challenging the above orders

of the court below.

 3. From the judgments of the courts below, the case of

the first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to for short as

'the aggrieved person' only) is revealed as follows:-

 According to her, herself and the petitioner herein

are belonging to Roman Christian community and their

marriage was solemnised on 23.5.1993 and they have adopted

a male child in October,2003. According to the aggrieved

person, after completing her M.Sc. and Ph.D., she was working

as Professor at P.S.G.Medical College, Coimbatore and the

petitioner was working at Calcutta. After the marriage, she

went to Vienna and Austria in 1994 and she had been there for

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-3-:

about 2= years and subsequently, she worked at Coimbatore,

Mangalore, Thiruvalla and at Amala Medical College, Thrissur.

According to the aggrieved person, the petitioner has no job or

income and he was living depending on the income of the

aggrieved person. It is the specific case of the aggrieved

person that the petitioner began to ill-treat the aggrieved

person since 2006 and he had no love and affection towards

her. According to her, the petitioner used to interfere with

her job and because of his harassment and ill-treatment, the

aggrieved person had to resign the job from Amala Medical

College on 6.12.2006 and she was assaulted on 20.1.2007. It is

also the assertion of the aggrieved person that A schedule

property was purchased in the name of the aggrieved person

in 2005 as per document No.2216/2005 of S.R.O.,Cherpu. It is

also averred that the petitioner has slapped her in the canteen

of the Amala Medical College. It is also the case of aggrieved

person that on 10.2.2007, the petitioner demanded Rs.5000/-

from her. According to the aggrieved person, the petitioner

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-4-:

had withdrawn all the amount from the South Indian Bank

deposited in the account and in the name of the aggrieved

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

she refused to pay the amount, she was beaten by the

petitioner and she had to escape from there along with her son

and finally the aggrieved person was constrained to seek

shelter to the house of her brother. It is the further case of the

aggrieved person that the petitioner had quarrelled with her

brother on 11.2.2007 and he had locked the movables worth of

Rs.4 lakhs in the building. Thus, according to the aggrieved

person, the petitioner has committed the domestic violence

against her and he used to abuse her. It is also the case of the

aggrieved person that apart from A schedule building, the

petitioner has no other place of residence and the petitioner

has no right over A and B schedule properties and according to

the aggrieved person, she is entitled to get Rs.20 lakhs as

damages from the revision petitioner.

 4. The contention put forward by the revision petitioner

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-5-:

in the courts below is that the petition itself was not

maintainable and he had not caused any harm or injury either

physical or mental to the aggrieved person. But, according to

the petitioner, he was physically assaulted and seriously

injured on 2.3.2007 at the instance of one Mr.P.L.Jose, who is

the elder brother of the aggrieved person and consequently,

the Ollur Police had registered a crime for the offence under

Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. According to the

petitioner, the Family Court, Thrissur has appointed him as the

sole guardian of the male child. According to him, it was, at

the instance of the petitioner, the aggrieved person was sent to

Vienna in Feburary 1994 for her Post-Doctoral studies and the

petitioner had met with the expense for the study and the stay

of aggrieved person at Vienna. According to the petitioner, he

was working as Export Manager of M/s. Jindal Aluminium Ltd.

at Bangalore and he went to Vienna at his own merit and

obtained appointment as Export Officer at the Embassy of

India and he never lived depending on the earnings of the

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-6-:

aggrieved person. According to the revision petitioner, he had

investments in Bank and reputed companies and he is also an

Advocate, enrolled after obtaining the L.L.B.Degree from

Calcutta University in 1982. The petitioner has denied all the

allegations of the aggrieved person that he had treated the

aggrieved person cruelly and also the averment that he had

assaulted her on 6.12.2006 and on 10.2.2007 at various places.

According to the petitioner, the aggrieved person has an

intolerable attitude and harsh tongue as a result of which

neighbours, colleagues and superiors of the aggrieved person

are against her. According to the petitioner, the Kodannur

house and property were bought by himself with his own

earnings, but in the name of the aggrieved person and the

aggrieved person has no case of domestic violence or case of

ill-treatment or harassment, in any of the proceedings pending

before the Family Court, including the divorce petition or any

other petitions pending before the Family Court, Thrissur. It is

also the contention of the petitioner that in OP No.1597 of

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-7-:

2007 pending before the Family Court, Thrissur, the aggrieved

person has already sought each and every one of the same

reliefs and obtained a status quo order with regard to the

movable household articles and also the Kodannur property

covered by document No.2216 of 2005 of the Cherpu Sub

Registry.

 5. I have heard Sri.P.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel

appearing for the revision petitioner and I have carefully

perused the judgments of the appellate court as well as the

trial court.

 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently

submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court

issued the impugned orders in favour of the aggrieved person

in the absence of any proper, positive and reliable evidence. It

is also the submission of the learned counsel that the direction

of the court below directing the petitioner to remove himself

from the shared house is highly oppressive and unjust

especially when the aggrieved person is residing far

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-8-:

away in Pondicherry. Besides the arguments of the learned

counsel based upon the facts and evidence involved in the

case, it is also his submission that the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is violative of Articles

14,21,25 and 29 of the Constitution of India and is liable to be

declared as void, inoperative and non est.

 7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by

the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have carefully

perused the judgments of the courts below.

 8. Though several grounds are taken in the memorandum

of revision petition in support of the contention against the

constitutional validity of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as it infringes Articles 14,21,25

and 29 of the Constitution of India, except a casual reference,

no detailed argument is advanced on those grounds. It is also

the contention of the learned counsel that the orders of the

courts below are liable to be set aside as there was no fair and

proper opportunity given to the petitioner to substantiate his

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-9-:

defence.

 9. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner, the question to be

considered is whether the courts below are justified in

granting such reliefs to the aggrieved person and whether the

judgments of the courts below and the findings contained

thereon are liable to be interfered with on the ground of any

irregularity, illegality or impropriety.

 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner raised

a contention that the Family Court has already issued a status

quo in O.P.No.1597 of 2007. Besides the above, according to

the learned counsel, the petitioner was appointed as the

guardian of the child and the orders now passed by the learned

Magistrate, which are confirmed by the appellate court, would

amount to interference with the orders passed by the Family

Court which is impermissible and highly arbitrary. With

respect to the above submission, according to me, as rightly

pointed out by the appellate court, in view of Section 26, the

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-10-:

aggrieved person is entitled to get any relief from a civil court

or family court or criminal court even though similar reliefs are

available under Sections 18,19,20,21 and 22 of the above Act.

So, according to me, the contention raised by the learned

counsel in this count also fails.

 11. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel

is that the revision petitioner was not granted ample

opportunity to establish his defence. Therefore, the procedure

and orders of the trial court are liable to be set aside. In the

light of the procedure adopted by the trial court and the

proceedings of the trial court which are mentioned by the

revision petitioner in paragraph 5 of the memorandum of

Criminal Revision Petition, it can be seen that the aggrieved

person and her witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined for

and on behalf of the petitioner and besides that, from the side

of the petitioner, he himself was examined as RW1 and one of

his witnesses was examined as RW2. The above facts itself are

sufficient to show that the petitioner was granted ample

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-11-:

opportunity of being heard including for adducing evidence.

Therefore, the above arguments of the learned counsel fail.

 12. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel

is purely on the basis of the facts and evidence and the

materials involved in the case. According to the learned

counsel, except the interested version of the aggrieved person,

there is no other independent evidence and the evidence of the

aggrieved person is not corroborated by any independent

source of evidence. According to me, this Court is not

expected to re-appraise the evidence in revision. Going by the

judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court, it

can be seen that both the courts, being the fact finding courts,

after having considered the evidence and materials on record

and appreciation of the same and by assigning legal and

factual reasons, found that the petitioner has committed

domestic violence. Admittedly, the revision petitioner as well

as the aggrieved person are highly qualified in education and

they are professionals. As rightly observed by the trial court

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-12-:

as well as the appellate court, the aggrieved person, as she left

with no other remedy, as a last resort approached the court

with a complaint against the revision petitioner who is her

husband because of the gravity of the harassment and ill-

treatment meted out against her by the revision petitioner.

The observation of the learned Magistrate is that normally no

wife would come against her husband with such a petition

alleging false allegations in a court of law. Going by the

judgment of the appellate court, it can be seen that the

aggrieved person has narrated elaborately, specific instances

of ill-treatment and harassment including physical assault. It

is a common knowledge that the nature of the incidents, which

are alleged by the aggrieved person are connected with

internal domestic affairs for which naturally, there may not be

any independent witnesses. Therefore, the test to be applied is

whether the evidence of such aggrieved person is reliable, and

trustworthy or whether the same is tainted or unreliable due to

any acceptable reasons. The victim of the harassment and ill-

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-13-:

treatment is the most competent witness to depose about the

same. Merely because the victim herself mounted to the box

and deposed in terms of her allegations in the complaint, her

deposition cannot be thrown away treating the same as

interested version. In the present case, though the aggrieved

person has cited and examined PW2, her brother, the court

below did not accept his evidence and the same was not acted

upon. But, the courts below after careful scrutiny of the

evidence of the aggrieved person, opted to accept the same, as

reliable and acceptable and especially there is nothing to

reject such evidence.

 13. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that

stray incident in a family life cannot be made as a ground for

issuing orders like the present one under the various

provisions of the above Act. In the light of the facts and

circumstances involved in the case, according to me, the above

arguments are liable to be rejected. As I indicated earlier, the

aggrieved person has specifically stated several incidents of

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-14-:

harassment and ill-treatment. According to me, the learned

counsel advanced such a contention simply because the

revision petitioner himself, while he was examined as RW1,

admitted certain instances of ill-treatment and harassment.

The appellate court in paragraph 9 of its judgment has stated

that when the petitioner was cross-examined as RW1, it is

admitted by him that he had informed PW1, the aggrieved

person that he would destroy her carreer and that PW1 had

agony on hearing this. It is also observed by the learned

Sessions Judge that RW1, the petitioner admitted that there

was scuffle between the revision petitioner and the aggrieved

person and the wedding chain of PW1 aggrieved person was

broken in the scuffle. RW1 has again admitted that the

character and conduct of the aggrieved person are intolerable

and the said averment in the counter is correct. The above

admission of the revision petitioner during his cross-

examination regarding those incidents, render credibility of

the evidence and averments of the aggrieved person, i.e., she

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-15-:

was subjected to cruel ill-treatment and harassment. As

rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, even the

verbal and emotional abuse amount to domestic violence in

view of Section 3 of the above Act. So the findings of the

courts below regarding the domestic violence meted out

against the aggrieved person from the part of the revision

petitioner are based upon clear evidence and therefore, the

first relief granted in favour of the aggrieved person is

absolutely correct and legal.

 14. Admittedly, Ext.P1 document would show that the

property shown in 'A' Schedule property was purchased in the

name of the aggrieved person. According to her, the said

property was purchased by using her own money. Though the

revision petitioner has got a case that the said property was

purchased by him with his own money, but in the name of the

aggrieved person, there is no evidence to substantiate such

claim, but the documentary evidence like Ext.P1 would show

that it is in the name of the aggrieved person. The revision

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-16-:

petitioner has also admitted that the aggrieved person has no

other house apart from the house in the A schedule property.

Therefore, the relief granted by the court below under Section

19 in favour of the aggrieved person is fully justified.

 15. The trial court as well as the appellate court have

found that the revision petitioner, as evidenced by receipt

dated 30.5.2010, has removed 13 items from the building. It is

also relevant to note that as rightly observed by the appellate

court, the prayer in I.A.No.4893 of 2007 in O.P.No.1597 of

2007 was only to restrain the revision petitioner from causing

damages or not to remove the items specified in B schedule.

But, as evidenced by receipt dated 30.5.2010, the revision

petitioner has removed 13 items. So according to me, the

court below rightly ordered the third relief in favour of the

aggrieved person and against the revision petitioner and the

same does not warrant any interference.

 16. With respect to the fourth relief granted in favour of

the aggrieved person, I am of the view that the facts and

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-17-:

circumstances and evidence involved in the case would justify

in granting such a relief though the petitioner has claimed that

the property lying in Sy.No.598/1 of the Thrissur Village is the

ancestral property of the revision petitioner. According to the

courts below, it has come out in evidence that the multi-

storeyed building in the above property was constructed by

availing loan from the bank and the aggrieved person was a

guarantor to the said loan. The court below observed that

when the revision petitioner was examined as RW1, he had

admitted that he had availed of a loan from the Bank and the

salary certificate of the aggrieved person was given to the

Bank as collateral security. He had also admitted that there is

a three storeyed incomplete building in the said property. If

that be so, in the light of the fact that the relationship between

the petitioner and his wife got strained, the apprehension of

the aggrieved person cannot be said to be baseless since in

case the revision petitioner disposes of the property, the

financial liability connected with the said loan would be on the

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-18-:

shoulder of the aggrieved person. Therefore, the court below

has correctly granted the fourth relief which does not require

any interference.

 17. Though there was no much argument regarding the

vires of the Act viz., the Protection of Women from domestic

Violence Act,2005 I am of the view that the grounds taken in

the memorandum of the Crl.R.P. are not sustainable in the

light of the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High

Court in Aruna Parmod Shah v. Union of India [2008(2)

Crimes 714(Del.)] In the above decision, it is held as follows:-

 "3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed
 the vires of the Act on the ground that inasmuch as it
 provides protection only to women and not to men, the
 statute offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It
 is beyond cavil that legislation must be presumed to be
 legally sound and proper, and therefore,the burden of
 proving that it is unconstitutional rests heavily on the
 petitioner who asserts so. It has been laid down that if it is
 evident that a statute is predicated on an intelligible
 differentia between persons falling within the protection of
 the provision viz-a-viz those falling outside, and this
 classification/differentia bears a reasonable nexus to the
 object sought to be achieved by the legislation, it would not
 infract or impinge upon the equality doctrine articulated and
 enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, we can do no

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-19-:

 better than to reproduce the following paragraph from
 State of A.P. v. Nallamilli Rami Reddi, 2001 KHC 1632: 2001
 (7) SCC 708: AIR 2001 SC 3616 which has also been relied
 upon in Basheer v. State of Kerala, 2004 KHC 540: 2004(3)
 SCC 609: 2004(2) KLT 39: AIR 2004 SC 2757:
 8. What Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits
 is 'class legislation' and not 'classification' for
 purpose of legislation, if the legislature
 reasonably classifies persons for legislative
 purposes so as to bring them under a well
 defined class, it is not open to challenge on the
 ground of denial of equal treatment that the law
 does not apply to other persons. The test of
 permissible classification is two fold: (i) that
 the classification must be founded on intelligible
 differentia which distinguishes persons grouped
 together from others who are left out of the
 group and (ii) that differentia must have a
 rational connection to the object sought to be
 achieved. Article 14 does not insist upon
 classification, which is scientifically perfect or
 logically complete. A classification would be
 justified unless it is patently arbitrary, if there
 is equality and uniformity in each group, the law
 will not become discriminatory, though due to
 some fortuitous circumstance arising out of
 (sic) peculiar situation some included in a class
 get an advantage over others so long as they are
 not singled out for special treatment, in
 substance, the differentia required is that it
 must be real and substantial, bearing some just
 and reasonable relation to the object of the
 legislation.
 4. Domestic violence is a worldwide phenomenon
 and has been discussed in International Fora, including

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-20-:

 the Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration
 and the Platform for Action (1995). The United Nations
 Committee Convention on Elimination of All Forms of
 Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) has
 recommended that States should act to protect women
 against violence of any kind, especially that occurring
 within the family. There is a perception, not unfounded
 or unjustified, that the lot and fate of women in India is
 an abjectly dismal one, which requires bringing into place,
 on an urgent basis, protective and ameliorative measures
 against exploitation of women. The argument that the
 Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India because it
 accords protection only to women and not to men is,
 therefore, wholly devoid of any merit. We do not rule
 out the possibility of a man becoming the victim of
 domestic violence, but such cases would be few and far
 between, thus not requiring or justifying the protection
 of Parliament."

After considering the various provisions of the above Act and

challenge against the constitutionality of the above Act, the

Delhi High Court in the above decision has held that "the

challenge to the vires of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act is misconceived and devoid of merit". In the present revision

petition also, the vires of the Act is challenged on the ground

that inasmuch as it provides protection only to women and not

to men, the statute offends Article 14 of the Constitution of

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-21-:

India. In the light of the similarity of the grounds in the

present Crl.R.P. and the case indicated above with respect to

the challenge of the vires of the above Act, I am of the view

that the above decision is squarely applicable in the present

case and in the light of the above decision, the challenge of the

petitioner against the above Act fails.

 18. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and

discussions, I find no merit in the revision petition and the

judgments of the courts below are perfectly legal, proper and

correct and reliefs granted in favour of the aggrieved person

are only just and proper and the same are confirmed.

 In the result, as there is no merit in the revision

petition, the same is dismissed.

 V.K.MOHANAN,
 Judge.

MBS/

Crl.R.PNO.338 of 2011

 :-22-:

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,325 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: