AMBUJAKSHI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the petitioner in MC No. 40/2011 on the files of Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha as well as the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 679/2011 on the files of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha. The Revision Petitioner is the wife of the 2nd respondent herein. She filed the petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband. Three daughters born in their wedlock are married and they are residing in their matrimonial home. The petitioner is undergoing treatment for cancer for the last two years. The 2nd respondent is a drunkard and he used to manhandle and abuse the petitioner using filthy words frequently. Recently, he made an attempt to sell the said residential property for his spendthrift needs and petitioner objected it. The respondent is not taking care of the affairs of the petitioner and she is even struggling to meet the expenses for her treatment. Hence the petitioner filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking protection against the respondent and an order restraining alienation of the shared household and also directing the 2nd respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance expenses for food, clothing and treatment. After appreciating the facts, the learned Magistrate by order dated 02/11/2011 allowed the petition directing the respondent not to cause physical hurt to the petitioner and dispossess her, once she returns to the shared household. The respondent was also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner and restrained the respondent from alienating the residential property having an extent of 42 cents belonging to him.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed Criminal Appeal No. 679/2011 before the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha. The main ground raised in this Revision Petition is that the Appellate Court modified the order of the Magistrate by limiting the restriction of alienation to the residential house and adjoining area having an extent of 20 cents alone and vacated the interim order against alienation of the remaining 22 cents of property which stands in the name of respondent. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the Court below overlooked the fact that even though 42 cents of land and the building there is in the name of respondent, he purchased the said property using the money and gold given by the father of the Revision Petitioner as her family share. Therefore, she has right over the entire property and the finding of the Appellate Court that the Revision Petitioner has no serious contention that she has exclusive right over the landed property now in possession of the respondent, is wrong and unsustainable. If the interim order is limited to 20 cents and house therein, the respondent would alienate the remaining 22 cents so as to cause hardships to the petitioner and the same would amount to an 'economic abuse' as defined under Section 3(iv)(b) of the DV Act.

(3.) In fact, there is no serious dispute with regard to the directions except the direction restraining the respondent from alienating 42 cents of his property and further modification of limiting the same to 20 cents in appeal. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned Magistrate should have passed an order in respect of the shared household only and the interim order restraining the appellant from alienating entire 42 cents of property passed by the Magistrate is not legally sustainable.