SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Harpreet Kaur Anand vs Mathew Joseph on 14 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1536 of 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A. NO.234/2018 ON THE FILES OF
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT SESSIONS COURT – VIII, ERNAKULAM
DATED 29-10-2018 IN MC 29/2018 OF TJE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

HARPREET KAUR ANAND, AGED 44 YEARS
W/O. MR. MATHEW JOSEPH,
TEMPORARILY RESIDING AS PAYING GUEST,
C/O DR.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
‘RADHEYAM HOUSE’, HOUSE NO.69/3076
SRM ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM
KERALA – 682 018.
HARPREET’S MOBILE NUMBER. 9717307465

BY HARPREET KAUR ANAND(PARTY IN PERSON)

RESPONDENT/S:

1 MATHEW JOSEPH,
S/O. RTD SQ.LDR.P.I.JOSEPH,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT DOOR NO.3B,
IVORY HEIGHTS, PARAMBITHARA CROSS ROAD
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICTS,
KERALA -682 036
MATHEW ‘S MOBILE NUMBER.9846313232.

2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

BY ADVS.
SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE
SRI.JAISON ANTONY
SRI.P.JAYABAL
SRI.SEMEER M

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.161/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet 1536/18 161/19

2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 25TH MAGHA, 1940

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 161 of 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRL.A.NO. 234/2018 ON THE FILES OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT SESSIONS COURT – VIII, ERNAKULAM
DATED 29-10-2018 IN MC NO.29/2018 OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (EO), ERNAKULAM DATED 15-05-2018

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

MATHEW JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. P.I. JOSEPH,
NOW RESIDING AT 3B, IVORY HEIGHTS,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 036.

BY ADVS.
SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE
SRI.JAISON ANTONY

RESPONDENT/S:

1 HARPREET KAUR ANAND,
AGED 44 YEARS,
D/O. LATE BALBIR SINGH,
NOW RESIDING AS PAYING GUEST,
C/O. K. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,
RADHEYAM HOUSE, HOUSE NO.69/3076,
SRM ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN- 682 018,
HAVING MOBILE NO 9717307465 AND EMAIL ID.
[email protected]

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

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.1536/2018, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet 1536/18 161/19

3

ORDER

These revision petitions are filed by the contesting parties in

M.C. No.29 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate Court (EO), Ernakulam.

2. The parties are spouses.

3. The revision petitioner in Criminal R.P.No.1536 of 2018 is

the wife and the aggrieved person in the M.C.

4. The revision petitioner in Crl.RP No.161 of 2019 is the

husband and the contesting respondent.

5. The petition was filed by the wife under Section 23 (2) of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

6. For the sake of ease and convenience, the parties shall be

referred to as per their status in the trial Court.

7. The petitioner contended that her marriage with the

respondent was solemnized in the year 2004. They had stayed at

Chennai and Dubai after the marriage. She was subjected to various

acts of abuse by the respondent making her life miserable. The

respondent is very affluent and is the Director of numerous

companies. He managed to stealthily obtain a decree of divorce ex

parte. The petitioner challenged the same and the same was later set
Crl.Rev.Pet 1536/18 161/19

4

aside. Later, the divorce petition was dismissed after enquiry. She is

an aggrieved person as per the provisions of the Act and sought for

various reliefs, including an order, for maintenance from the

respondent and a residence order to enable her to stay in the shared

household.

8. The respondent refuted the contentions by filing a detailed

objection. He denied that the petitioner was subjected to any act of

domestic violence. The business run by the respondent ended up

acquiring huge losses and he is now penniless. The claimant used to

live life in a flamboyant manner much beyond her means. The

petitioner refused to take care of his needs or that of his son. He

realized that the marital tie was irrevocably broken down. She used to

run a real estate business and sustained huge losses. The respondent

had to intervene to settle her liabilities and she was finally sent back

to India. According to the respondent, the petitioner had left the

company of the respondent and did not take care of his child. Finally,

seeing the pitiable condition of his child, he executed an agreement

and took custody of his son. The petitioner without any qualms,

handed over the custody and guardianship of the child to the

respondent. He contended that after securing an ex parte decree from

the Family Court, he got married after the appeal period. He has a
Crl.Rev.Pet 1536/18 161/19

5

son in his second marriage and he is living a peaceful life with his

family. According to the respondent, the petitioner is misusing the

salutary provisions of the Domestic Violence Act to extort money from

him. He denied the allegations against him and sought for dismissal of

the petition.

9. The learned Magistrate considered the rival contentions

and taking note of the fact that the marital relationship was still

subsisting, held that the petitioner is entitled to interim maintenance.

Based on the materials available, it was concluded that the

respondent is an affluent man with directorship in more than ten

companies. The quantum of interim maintenance payable was fixed

at Rs.20,000/-. However, taking note of the fact that the respondent

has married another woman and had a child, he was ordered to

arrange a one bedroom house for the petitioner’s residence within a

month or in the alternative, the petitioner was permitted to take a

house on rent and the respondent was held liable to pay rent at

Rs.7,000/- per mensem.

10. Both sides preferred Appeals before the Court of Session.

The petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate was not

justified in permitting her to reside in the shared household. The

respondent, on the other hand, challenged the order on the ground
Crl.Rev.Pet 1536/18 161/19

6

that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was untenable.

11. Both the appeals were considered together by the learned

Sessions Judge. By the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2018, the

appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the one

preferred by the respondent was allowed in part. The learned

Sessions Judge refused to interfere with the order granting interim

maintenance. However, the order directing the providing of

alternative accommodation or in the alternative of paying the rent

was set aside.

12. Both sides have filed separate revision petitions

challenging the common judgment.

13. I have heard the petitioner, who argued the matter in

person. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent was also

heard in extenso.

14. Both the courts have concurrently found that the 1 st

respondent in Crl.R.P. No.1536 of 2018 is the husband of the

petitioner and that he is legally bound to maintain his wife. On the

basis of the available materials, it is undisputed that the petitioner is

a Director in scores of companies. His contention that the business

has nosedived was concurrently found against by both the courts.

There was no material before the courts below to conclude otherwise.
Crl.Rev.Pet 1536/18 161/19

7

The aggrieved person is entitled to get interim maintenance which is

adequate, fair, reasonable and consistent with the standard of living,

to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. The amount ordered

cannot by any stretch of imagination be excessive.

15. However, insofar as the alternate accommodation is

concerned, the Appellate Court interfered with the findings of the

learned Magistrate on the ground that there is no claim for

alternative accommodation. The original petition which is made

available shows that the wife had sought for monitory relief,

residence order and compensation order. She has specifically

requested that she should be permitted to live in the shared

household to achieve her objective of staying with her son in the

house. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the learned

Sessions Judge insofar as it denies the petitioner an alternate

accommodation or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- cannot

be sustained under law. To that extent, I am inclined to interfere with

the order as the finding is without proper appreciation of the

materials on record. I set aside the order passed by the learned

Sessions Judge and restore the order passed by the learned

Magistrate.

Crl.Rev.Pet 1536/18 161/19

8

16. The respondent shall deposit the entire arrears as per the

orders passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel

submitted that he be granted a breathing time to deposit the arrears.

The respondent is granted a time frame of 30 days from today to

deposit the entire arrears. If he fails to do so, the learned Magistrate

shall initiate appropriate proceedings to realise the amount. The

learned Magistrate shall also expedite the proceedings and take the

matter to its logical conclusion at the earliest, at any rate, within a

period of three months from today.

In the result, Cr.R.P.No.1536 of 2018 will stand allowed and

Crl.R.P No. 161 of 2019 will stand dismissed.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
avs
Crl.Rev.Pet 1536/18 161/19

9

APPENDIX OF Crl.Rev.Pet 1536/2018
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 29TH
OCTOBER 2018 IN CIMINAL APPEAL IN 285/2018
PRONOUNCED BY VIII ADDITIIONAL SESSIONS
COURT,ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25TH MAY 2O18 IN
CMP 534/18 IN MC 29/2018 PRONOUNCED BY
HON’BLE JUDGE AT THE ACJM COURT,ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25TH SEPTEMBER
2018 IN OP 1583/2018 PRONOUNCED BY HON’BLE
JUDGE AT THE FAMILY
COURT,ERNAKULAM,SUBSTANTING THE SUBSISTENCE
OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN PETITIONER-WIFE AND
RESPONDENT-HUSBAND.

ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.234/2018,FILED BEFORE THE SESSIONS
COURT,ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO.285/2018,FILED BEFORE THE SESSIONS
COURT,ERNAKULAM.

Crl.Rev.Pet 1536/18 161/19

10

APPENDIX OF Crl.Rev.Pet 161/2019
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A-1 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 03/07/2011.

ANNEXURE A-2 COPY OF THE INDIAN INCOME TAX RETURN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF
THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR
2016-17.

ANNEXURE A-2(A) COPY OF THE INDIAN INCOME TAX RETURN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF
THE PETITIONER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR
2017-18.

ANNEXURE A-3 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ANIL
K.GOYAL ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
DATED 05/11/2018.

ANNEXURE A-3(A) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SUNNY
JOSEPH ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
DATED 31/10/2018.

ANNEXURE A-39B) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PILLAI
ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS DATED
31/10/2018.

ANNEXURE A-3(C) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM CEO OF M/S.

MATHER PROJECTS PVT. LTD.

ANNEXURE A-4 COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BEFORE THE
HON’BLE FAMILY COURT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM IN
O.P.NO.992/2018 DATED 28/07/2018.

ANNEXURE A-5 COPY OF THE B-DIARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE
HON’BLE FAMILY COURT , ERNAKULAM IN
O.P.NO.992/2018.

ANNEXURE A-6 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE REGISTRAR
OF COMPANIES EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT M/S.
GREEN TEA SPA RESORTS INTL PVT. LTD. HAS
BEEN STRUCK OFF/REMOVED.

ANNEXURE A-6(A) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE REGISTRAR
OF COMPANIES EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT M/S.
CONTINENTAL HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD HAS BEEN
STRUCK OFF/REMOVED.

Crl.Rev.Pet 1536/18 161/19

11

ANNEXURE A-6(B) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE REGISTRAR
OF COMPANIES EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT M/S.
LOONS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD HAS
BEEN STRUCK OFF/REMOVED.

ANNEXURE A-6(C) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE REGISTRAR
OF COMPANIES EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT
M/S.CONTINENTAL FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
PVT. LTD HAS BEEN STRUCK OFF/REMOVED.

ANNEXURE A-6(D) COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE REGISTRAR
OF COMPANIES EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT M/S.
AVENTURA REALTORS PVT. LTD HAS BEEN STRUCK
OFF/REMOVED.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation