SULAIMAN KUNJU Vs. NABEESA BEEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the respondent in MC No. 15/2009 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kayamkulam. The above MC was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and sought for reliefs under Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20. The learned Magistrate passed an order restraining the revision petitioner from making any kind of obstruction to the peaceful living of the 1st respondent and her children in the shared household mentioned in the petition and also from committing any kind of domestic violence towards the 1st respondent. Further, the revision petitioner is directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs. 1,500/- each to her two children, per month from the date of the order. He was restrained from alienating or encumbering the property wherein the shared household is situated, without the leave of the Court. This order is under challenge in this Revision Petition. It is the case of the 1st respondent that she is the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner and they have got two children in the wed-lock and they are aged 17 and 14 years respectively. At the time of marriage, she was given 15 sovereigns of gold and Rs. 35,000/- in cash by her parents. In addition to that, the revision petitioner was given Rs. 1,50,000/- by the father of the 1st respondent for his job in Gulf. The revision petitioner used to harass and manhandle the 1st respondent demanding more money towards dowry. Being fed up with the cruel treatment of the revision petitioner, the 1st respondent and her two children took refuge in her parental home. She had preferred a complaint before the Magistrate Court alleging the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. But, at last, the entire disputes were settled in Adalath under which the revision petitioner agreed to pay maintenance to the children at the rate of Rs. 500/- each per month. But, thereafter, the 1st respondent was again subjected to cruelty and she was not provided with sufficient means to maintain herself and her children. According to the 1st respondent she has no job or income and she is unable to maintain herself and her two children, who are now residing in the parental house. Now she is depending upon her aged parents and close relatives. The revision petitioner is having an intention to marry another lady of better financial background after deserting the 1st respondent and her children. The 1st respondent and the two children do not have any place of abode other than the shared household and they are also running short of sufficient means to meet their day-to-day requirements.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed an objection admitting the marriage as well as the paternity, but denying the allegations of cruelty levelled against him. He denied the averments regarding the money and the gold ornaments, which are allegedly given to the 1st respondent and the revision petitioner at the time of marriage. The revision petitioner also admitted that the disputes were settled in Adalath. But the 1st respondent was not amenable to the settlement. According to him, he never attempted to oust the 1st respondent and her children from the house. He had not committed any cruelty towards the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner advanced arguments challenging the impugned order.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent advanced arguments to justify the impugned order. I heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.