BISMI KRISHNA Vs. AISHA LUBINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision petition is the applicant in M.C. No.112 of 2018 on the files of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram instituted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005 (Act). The respondents are respondents 4 to 6 in the said application. Respondents 1 to 3 in the application are the husband, father-n-law and mother-in-law respectively of the petitioner. The fourth respondent in the application is the sister of the first respondent. The fifth and sixth respondents in the application are the daughter and husband respectively of the fourth respondent. In the course of the proceedings, respondents preferred Crl.M.P. No. 2773 of 2019 seeking orders removing them from the array of parties in the application on the ground that the proceedings as against them is not maintainable. The jurisdictional Magistrate allowed Crl.M.P. No. 2773 of 2019 holding that the application does not disclose any domestic relationship between the petitioner and the respondents nor does the application disclose any domestic violence committed by the respondents. The petitioner challenged the order in Crl.M.P. No. 2773 of 2019 in Crl.A. No. 175 of 2019. The appellate court, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, affirmed the order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decisions of the courts below.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has made available for the perusal of the court a copy the application preferred by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate. As indicated in the impugned decisions, the application does not disclose that the petitioner has ever lived together with the respondents in a shared household. The application does not also disclose any allegation constituting prima facie domestic violence on the part of the respondents as defined in the Act. The jurisdictional Magistrate noticed that the only allegation against the respondents in the application was that the petitioner has handed over to them 68 sovereigns of gold ornaments in connection with the marriage of the fifth respondent on condition that the same shall be returned to her and that the respondents have not returned the ornaments as promised. It was held by both the jurisdictional Magistrate as also the appellate court that such an allegation would not amount to domestic violence as defined in the Act. It is on the aforesaid premise that the jurisdictional Magistrate allowed the application preferred by the respondents. The appellate court is seen to have dismissed the appeal more or less affirming the aforesaid view of the jurisdictional Magistrate.