YUSAF Vs. AYSHA P A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the accused in M.C.No.96/09 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdurg. The 1st respondent is the wife and the respondents 2 to 9 are the children aged 21, 19, 17, 15, 13, 11, 8 and 5 years respectively. According to the 1st respondent, she is the legally wedded wife and the respondents 2 to 9 are the children born in that wed-lock. They filed the above petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (for short, 'the D.V.Act'), claiming reliefs under Section 20 of the said Act. It is the case of the 1st respondent that the revision petitioner has been neglecting to maintain the respondents and she is unable to maintain herself and the children. She has no job or income. But, the revision petitioner has sufficient means to pay maintenance allowance to them. In addition to this, the respondents raised serious allegations of misconduct against the revision petitioner. He has contracted another marriage with one Suhara during the subsistence of the marriage with the 1st respondent. He has sold away the property of the 1st respondent and, using the sale proceeds, he purchased another property in his name alone and, thereafter, that property was also sold away and in that count, he received Rs.42,500/- as sale consideration. But, he utilized the same for his own purpose. He has ill-treated respondents 2 to 4, who are grown up daughters. He tried to marry again; but the same was failed due to the intervention of the Mosque committee. Now, he is residing with another lady by name, Amina at Ittummal. He is earning an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. The respondents prayed for a direction to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the 1st respondent, Rs.2,000/- each to the respondents 2 to 4, Rs.1,500/- each to the respondents 5 to 7 and Rs.1,000/- each to the respondents 8 and 9. They have also claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental torture and emotional distress. The learned Magistrate directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the 1st respondent, Rs.750/- each to the respondents 4 to 7 and Rs.500/- each to the respondents 8 and 9 per month. He was also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the 1st respondent towards compensation for mental and physical torture and Rs.42,500/- towards the sale consideration of 7 cents of property owned by the 1st respondent.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, the revision petitioner had preferred Crl.Appeal No.292/10 before the Sessions Court, Kasaragod. But, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge also confirmed the judgment of the court below, without any interference. This Revision Petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below.

(3.) The revision petitioner filed a counter statement admitting the marriage with the 1st respondent and the paternity of the respondents 2 to 9. He claimed that he had pronounced 'talaq' on 3.8.2005. It was also contended that the provisions of the D.V.Act came into force on 26.10.2006 only. Therefore, the Act has no retrospective effect. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to get any relief under the D.V. Act. It is also contended that the 1st respondent is a Bharath beedi roller. The 2nd respondent is aged 22 years and she is a nurse at Mansoor Hospital, Kanhangad. The 3rd respondent is aged 20 years and she is a Clerk in the Office of the Leader Due Service, Kanhangad. The 4th respondent is also going for a job at Tip Top Watch Works and she is aged 19 years. So, they are not eligible to get maintenance allowance from the revision petitioner. The respondents 5 and 6 are studying at Yathimkhana, Kanhangad and the 7th respondent is studying at Yathimkhana, Parappally. According to the revision petitioner, on 30/5/07 the Women Commission ordered the revision petitioner to give an amount of Rs. 1,200/- towards maintenance and he has been paying that amount.