Friday, July 18, 2014

strict rule of evidence not attracted in DVcase, so wife gets money EVEN if her case NOT proven! KeralaHC Gem !!

strict rule of evidence not attracted in DVcase, so wife gets money EVEN if her case NOT proven! Kerala HC Gem !!


Kerala High Court
Revision vs Complainant(S)/ on 25 August, 2012
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 41 of 2013 ()

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

* wife alleges that husband has relations with his own brother's wife !!
* wife has left matri home and is living with parents / siblings
* lower courts DO NOT BELIVE wife's version of cruelty and do NOT believe allegations
* still wife gets rs 4500 p.m. as maintenance + residence !!
* husband asks simple question, how can wife get money when her case / documents are NOT PROVEN
* HC says "....in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the above Act, the strict rule of evidence are not attracted. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders granted by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court granting maintenance of the wife and monthly payment towards alternate accommodation. Therefore there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed......"
* In simple terms, wife continues to get the moolah !!


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Kerala High Court

Revision vs Complainant(S)/ on 25 August, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/20TH POUSHA 1934

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 41 of 2013 ()

*****************************
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA.415/2010 DATED 25*08*2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC.39/2008 DATED 08*07*2010


REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
*****************************
SAJEEV RAGHAVAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN
SANKARAMANGALAM, ARATTUPUZHA MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, SMT.S.INDU


COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE :
********************************

1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. REMANI, W/O. SAJEEV RAGHAVAN
PUTHUKANDATHIL HOUSE KADAOOR MURI KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 688 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R


THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PN

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl. R. P. No. 41 of 2013

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2013 ORDER

The revision petitioner, is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 415/2010 of the Court of Additional District Judge Fast Track (Adhoc) Court, Mavelikara, against an order dated 08.07.2010 in M.C. No. 39/2008 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Mavelikara which is instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal in part by interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate and while sustaining the direction issued by the learned Magistrate to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- as monthly maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month for availing alternate accommodation for the aggrieved wife from the petitioner husband but the other reliefs granted were set aside in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the present revision petition is filed.

2. I have heard Sri. S. Shanavan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner after taking me through the judgment of the lower appellate court particularly paragraph 12 of that judgment, submitted that, the appellate court has reluctant to believe the case of the aggrieved person the wife about the alleged illicit connection of the revision petitioner with the wife of his brother and also disbelieved the case of the wife about the cruelty etc. According to the learned counsel the appellate court refused to accept that case since the court below was not inclined to act upon the sole evidence of the aggrieved person who was examined as PW1. After inviting my attention to paragraph 12 of the above judgment of the appellate court particularly with respect to Exhibit P3 wound certificate and Exhibits P4 and P5 medical bills and about non examination of the doctor who issued Exhibit P3, the learned counsel submitted that those documents cannot be believed, as the same were not proved property and therefore the wife the aggrieved person has miserably failed to substantiate her case against the revision petitioner regarding the cruelty. If that be so, according to the learned counsel, the appellate court judgment is liable to be interfered with to the extent it sustaining the order of the learned Magistrate granting Rs.2,500/- as maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month for her alternate accommodation. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. I am unable to accept the above contention and to interfere with the orders of the appellate court. It is boned out from the judgments of the courts below that the marriage between the petitioner and the aggrieved person wife is still existing and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court has found that the aggrieved person had left the matrimonial home and residing along with her mother and siblings. It is also found by both the courts below that the aggrieved person has no income to maintain herself and the petitioner has also failed to prove, otherwise. It is also relevant to note that the documents referred to by the appellate court particularly Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 documents, which are contemporary documents came into existence even prior to the litigation started, probably, there may be some default on the part of the aggrieved person in proving the same but according to me, in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the above Act, the strict rule of evidence are not attracted. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders granted by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court granting maintenance of the wife and monthly payment towards alternate accommodation. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Therefore there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

/True copy/

P. A. to Judge


strict rule of evidence not attracted in DVcase, so wife gets money EVEN if her case NOT proven! Kerala HC Gem !!


Kerala High Court
Revision vs Complainant(S)/ on 25 August, 2012
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 41 of 2013 ()

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

* wife alleges that husband has relations with his own brother's wife !!
* wife has left matri home and is living with parents / siblings
* lower courts DO NOT BELIVE wife's version of cruelty and do NOT believe allegations
* still wife gets rs 4500 p.m. as maintenance + residence !!
* husband asks simple question, how can wife get money when her case / documents are NOT PROVEN
* HC says "....in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the above Act, the strict rule of evidence are not attracted. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders granted by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court granting maintenance of the wife and monthly payment towards alternate accommodation. Therefore there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed......"
* In simple terms, wife continues to get the moolah !!


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Kerala High Court

Revision vs Complainant(S)/ on 25 August, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/20TH POUSHA 1934

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 41 of 2013 ()

*****************************
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA.415/2010 DATED 25*08*2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC.39/2008 DATED 08*07*2010


REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
*****************************
SAJEEV RAGHAVAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN
SANKARAMANGALAM, ARATTUPUZHA MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, SMT.S.INDU


COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE :
********************************

1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. REMANI, W/O. SAJEEV RAGHAVAN
PUTHUKANDATHIL HOUSE KADAOOR MURI KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 688 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R


THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PN

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl. R. P. No. 41 of 2013

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2013 ORDER

The revision petitioner, is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 415/2010 of the Court of Additional District Judge Fast Track (Adhoc) Court, Mavelikara, against an order dated 08.07.2010 in M.C. No. 39/2008 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Mavelikara which is instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal in part by interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate and while sustaining the direction issued by the learned Magistrate to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- as monthly maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month for availing alternate accommodation for the aggrieved wife from the petitioner husband but the other reliefs granted were set aside in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the present revision petition is filed.

2. I have heard Sri. S. Shanavan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner after taking me through the judgment of the lower appellate court particularly paragraph 12 of that judgment, submitted that, the appellate court has reluctant to believe the case of the aggrieved person the wife about the alleged illicit connection of the revision petitioner with the wife of his brother and also disbelieved the case of the wife about the cruelty etc. According to the learned counsel the appellate court refused to accept that case since the court below was not inclined to act upon the sole evidence of the aggrieved person who was examined as PW1. After inviting my attention to paragraph 12 of the above judgment of the appellate court particularly with respect to Exhibit P3 wound certificate and Exhibits P4 and P5 medical bills and about non examination of the doctor who issued Exhibit P3, the learned counsel submitted that those documents cannot be believed, as the same were not proved property and therefore the wife the aggrieved person has miserably failed to substantiate her case against the revision petitioner regarding the cruelty. If that be so, according to the learned counsel, the appellate court judgment is liable to be interfered with to the extent it sustaining the order of the learned Magistrate granting Rs.2,500/- as maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month for her alternate accommodation. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. I am unable to accept the above contention and to interfere with the orders of the appellate court. It is boned out from the judgments of the courts below that the marriage between the petitioner and the aggrieved person wife is still existing and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court has found that the aggrieved person had left the matrimonial home and residing along with her mother and siblings. It is also found by both the courts below that the aggrieved person has no income to maintain herself and the petitioner has also failed to prove, otherwise. It is also relevant to note that the documents referred to by the appellate court particularly Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 documents, which are contemporary documents came into existence even prior to the litigation started, probably, there may be some default on the part of the aggrieved person in proving the same but according to me, in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the above Act, the strict rule of evidence are not attracted. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders granted by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court granting maintenance of the wife and monthly payment towards alternate accommodation. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Therefore there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

/True copy/

P. A. to Judge


strict rule of evidence not attracted in DVcase, so wife gets money EVEN if her case NOT proven! Kerala HC Gem !!


Kerala High Court
Revision vs Complainant(S)/ on 25 August, 2012
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 41 of 2013 ()

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

* wife alleges that husband has relations with his own brother's wife !!
* wife has left matri home and is living with parents / siblings
* lower courts DO NOT BELIVE wife's version of cruelty and do NOT believe allegations
* still wife gets rs 4500 p.m. as maintenance + residence !!
* husband asks simple question, how can wife get money when her case / documents are NOT PROVEN
* HC says "....in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the above Act, the strict rule of evidence are not attracted. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders granted by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court granting maintenance of the wife and monthly payment towards alternate accommodation. Therefore there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed......"
* In simple terms, wife continues to get the moolah !!


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Kerala High Court

Revision vs Complainant(S)/ on 25 August, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/20TH POUSHA 1934

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 41 of 2013 ()

*****************************
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA.415/2010 DATED 25*08*2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC.39/2008 DATED 08*07*2010


REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
*****************************
SAJEEV RAGHAVAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN
SANKARAMANGALAM, ARATTUPUZHA MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, SMT.S.INDU


COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE :
********************************

1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. REMANI, W/O. SAJEEV RAGHAVAN
PUTHUKANDATHIL HOUSE KADAOOR MURI KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 688 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R


THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PN

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl. R. P. No. 41 of 2013

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2013 ORDER

The revision petitioner, is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 415/2010 of the Court of Additional District Judge Fast Track (Adhoc) Court, Mavelikara, against an order dated 08.07.2010 in M.C. No. 39/2008 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Mavelikara which is instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal in part by interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate and while sustaining the direction issued by the learned Magistrate to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- as monthly maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month for availing alternate accommodation for the aggrieved wife from the petitioner husband but the other reliefs granted were set aside in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the present revision petition is filed.

2. I have heard Sri. S. Shanavan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner after taking me through the judgment of the lower appellate court particularly paragraph 12 of that judgment, submitted that, the appellate court has reluctant to believe the case of the aggrieved person the wife about the alleged illicit connection of the revision petitioner with the wife of his brother and also disbelieved the case of the wife about the cruelty etc. According to the learned counsel the appellate court refused to accept that case since the court below was not inclined to act upon the sole evidence of the aggrieved person who was examined as PW1. After inviting my attention to paragraph 12 of the above judgment of the appellate court particularly with respect to Exhibit P3 wound certificate and Exhibits P4 and P5 medical bills and about non examination of the doctor who issued Exhibit P3, the learned counsel submitted that those documents cannot be believed, as the same were not proved property and therefore the wife the aggrieved person has miserably failed to substantiate her case against the revision petitioner regarding the cruelty. If that be so, according to the learned counsel, the appellate court judgment is liable to be interfered with to the extent it sustaining the order of the learned Magistrate granting Rs.2,500/- as maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month for her alternate accommodation. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. I am unable to accept the above contention and to interfere with the orders of the appellate court. It is boned out from the judgments of the courts below that the marriage between the petitioner and the aggrieved person wife is still existing and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court has found that the aggrieved person had left the matrimonial home and residing along with her mother and siblings. It is also found by both the courts below that the aggrieved person has no income to maintain herself and the petitioner has also failed to prove, otherwise. It is also relevant to note that the documents referred to by the appellate court particularly Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 documents, which are contemporary documents came into existence even prior to the litigation started, probably, there may be some default on the part of the aggrieved person in proving the same but according to me, in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the above Act, the strict rule of evidence are not attracted. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders granted by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court granting maintenance of the wife and monthly payment towards alternate accommodation. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Therefore there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

/True copy/

P. A. to Judge


strict rule of evidence not attracted in DVcase, so wife gets money EVEN if her case NOT proven! Kerala HC Gem !!


Kerala High Court
Revision vs Complainant(S)/ on 25 August, 2012
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 41 of 2013 ()

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

* wife alleges that husband has relations with his own brother's wife !!
* wife has left matri home and is living with parents / siblings
* lower courts DO NOT BELIVE wife's version of cruelty and do NOT believe allegations
* still wife gets rs 4500 p.m. as maintenance + residence !!
* husband asks simple question, how can wife get money when her case / documents are NOT PROVEN
* HC says "....in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the above Act, the strict rule of evidence are not attracted. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders granted by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court granting maintenance of the wife and monthly payment towards alternate accommodation. Therefore there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed......"
* In simple terms, wife continues to get the moolah !!


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Kerala High Court

Revision vs Complainant(S)/ on 25 August, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/20TH POUSHA 1934

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 41 of 2013 ()

*****************************
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA.415/2010 DATED 25*08*2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC.39/2008 DATED 08*07*2010


REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
*****************************
SAJEEV RAGHAVAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN
SANKARAMANGALAM, ARATTUPUZHA MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, SMT.S.INDU


COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE :
********************************

1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. REMANI, W/O. SAJEEV RAGHAVAN
PUTHUKANDATHIL HOUSE KADAOOR MURI KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 688 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R


THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PN

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl. R. P. No. 41 of 2013

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2013 ORDER

The revision petitioner, is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 415/2010 of the Court of Additional District Judge Fast Track (Adhoc) Court, Mavelikara, against an order dated 08.07.2010 in M.C. No. 39/2008 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Mavelikara which is instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal in part by interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate and while sustaining the direction issued by the learned Magistrate to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- as monthly maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month for availing alternate accommodation for the aggrieved wife from the petitioner husband but the other reliefs granted were set aside in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the present revision petition is filed.

2. I have heard Sri. S. Shanavan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner after taking me through the judgment of the lower appellate court particularly paragraph 12 of that judgment, submitted that, the appellate court has reluctant to believe the case of the aggrieved person the wife about the alleged illicit connection of the revision petitioner with the wife of his brother and also disbelieved the case of the wife about the cruelty etc. According to the learned counsel the appellate court refused to accept that case since the court below was not inclined to act upon the sole evidence of the aggrieved person who was examined as PW1. After inviting my attention to paragraph 12 of the above judgment of the appellate court particularly with respect to Exhibit P3 wound certificate and Exhibits P4 and P5 medical bills and about non examination of the doctor who issued Exhibit P3, the learned counsel submitted that those documents cannot be believed, as the same were not proved property and therefore the wife the aggrieved person has miserably failed to substantiate her case against the revision petitioner regarding the cruelty. If that be so, according to the learned counsel, the appellate court judgment is liable to be interfered with to the extent it sustaining the order of the learned Magistrate granting Rs.2,500/- as maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month for her alternate accommodation. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. I am unable to accept the above contention and to interfere with the orders of the appellate court. It is boned out from the judgments of the courts below that the marriage between the petitioner and the aggrieved person wife is still existing and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court has found that the aggrieved person had left the matrimonial home and residing along with her mother and siblings. It is also found by both the courts below that the aggrieved person has no income to maintain herself and the petitioner has also failed to prove, otherwise. It is also relevant to note that the documents referred to by the appellate court particularly Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 documents, which are contemporary documents came into existence even prior to the litigation started, probably, there may be some default on the part of the aggrieved person in proving the same but according to me, in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the above Act, the strict rule of evidence are not attracted. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders granted by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court granting maintenance of the wife and monthly payment towards alternate accommodation. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Therefore there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

/True copy/

P. A. to Judge


strict rule of evidence not attracted in DVcase, so wife gets money EVEN if her case NOT proven! Kerala HC Gem !!


Kerala High Court
Revision vs Complainant(S)/ on 25 August, 2012
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 41 of 2013 ()

http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

* wife alleges that husband has relations with his own brother's wife !!
* wife has left matri home and is living with parents / siblings
* lower courts DO NOT BELIVE wife's version of cruelty and do NOT believe allegations
* still wife gets rs 4500 p.m. as maintenance + residence !!
* husband asks simple question, how can wife get money when her case / documents are NOT PROVEN
* HC says "....in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the above Act, the strict rule of evidence are not attracted. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders granted by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court granting maintenance of the wife and monthly payment towards alternate accommodation. Therefore there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed......"
* In simple terms, wife continues to get the moolah !!


*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family movement. SIF as a concept is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
 
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************

Kerala High Court

Revision vs Complainant(S)/ on 25 August, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/20TH POUSHA 1934

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 41 of 2013 ()

*****************************
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA.415/2010 DATED 25*08*2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC.39/2008 DATED 08*07*2010


REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
*****************************
SAJEEV RAGHAVAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN
SANKARAMANGALAM, ARATTUPUZHA MURI, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, SMT.S.INDU


COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE :
********************************

1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. REMANI, W/O. SAJEEV RAGHAVAN
PUTHUKANDATHIL HOUSE KADAOOR MURI KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 688 001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R


THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PN

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl. R. P. No. 41 of 2013

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2013 ORDER

The revision petitioner, is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 415/2010 of the Court of Additional District Judge Fast Track (Adhoc) Court, Mavelikara, against an order dated 08.07.2010 in M.C. No. 39/2008 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Mavelikara which is instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal in part by interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate and while sustaining the direction issued by the learned Magistrate to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- as monthly maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month for availing alternate accommodation for the aggrieved wife from the petitioner husband but the other reliefs granted were set aside in favour of the appellant. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the present revision petition is filed.

2. I have heard Sri. S. Shanavan Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner after taking me through the judgment of the lower appellate court particularly paragraph 12 of that judgment, submitted that, the appellate court has reluctant to believe the case of the aggrieved person the wife about the alleged illicit connection of the revision petitioner with the wife of his brother and also disbelieved the case of the wife about the cruelty etc. According to the learned counsel the appellate court refused to accept that case since the court below was not inclined to act upon the sole evidence of the aggrieved person who was examined as PW1. After inviting my attention to paragraph 12 of the above judgment of the appellate court particularly with respect to Exhibit P3 wound certificate and Exhibits P4 and P5 medical bills and about non examination of the doctor who issued Exhibit P3, the learned counsel submitted that those documents cannot be believed, as the same were not proved property and therefore the wife the aggrieved person has miserably failed to substantiate her case against the revision petitioner regarding the cruelty. If that be so, according to the learned counsel, the appellate court judgment is liable to be interfered with to the extent it sustaining the order of the learned Magistrate granting Rs.2,500/- as maintenance and Rs.2,000/- per month for her alternate accommodation. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

3. I am unable to accept the above contention and to interfere with the orders of the appellate court. It is boned out from the judgments of the courts below that the marriage between the petitioner and the aggrieved person wife is still existing and the trial court as well as the lower appellate court has found that the aggrieved person had left the matrimonial home and residing along with her mother and siblings. It is also found by both the courts below that the aggrieved person has no income to maintain herself and the petitioner has also failed to prove, otherwise. It is also relevant to note that the documents referred to by the appellate court particularly Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 documents, which are contemporary documents came into existence even prior to the litigation started, probably, there may be some default on the part of the aggrieved person in proving the same but according to me, in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the above Act, the strict rule of evidence are not attracted. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders granted by the trial court which is confirmed by the appellate court granting maintenance of the wife and monthly payment towards alternate accommodation. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

Therefore there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

/True copy/


http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com



*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/  FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
  
  
regards
  
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist