RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated 08.10.2014 of the Court of Session, Palakkad in Crl. Appeal No. 323/2013. As per the said judgment, the Appellate Court confirmed the order passed by the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam in M.C. No. 18/2012 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') filed by the second respondent herein, claiming to be the wife of the revision petitioner. It was contended therein, inter alia, that their marriage was solemnized on 28.06.1980 and two children were born in the wedlock and also that she was living separately from the revision petitioner from April, 2002 onwards. Allegations of ill -treatment were raised and cited as the reason for parting with his company. Essentially it was contended by the second respondent that the revision petitioner who is capable of maintaining her, had been neglecting to maintain her. Certain other contentions were also raised by the second respondent to seek for various reliefs in M.C. No. 18/2012, which was filed under Sections 12, 18(a), (b), (d), (e), 19(d), 19(8), 20(1), 22 and 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Magistrate allowed the said petition in part and as per the order dated 01.08.2013, restrained the revision petitioner from committing any domestic violence towards the second respondent. He was also directed to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs. 1000/ - to the second respondent from the date of filing the petition i.e. 23.02.2012. Further he was restrained from alienating the property described in the said petition which stands in his name and also from cutting and removing of the trees standing there. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2013 feeling aggrieved by the said order. It is to be noted that though some of the reliefs sought for were declined the second respondent did not take up the matter further. The Appellate Court, after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner found them meritless and consequently dismissed the appeal. This revision petition is filed against the order in Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2013.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and also the learned public prosecutor. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the appellate court had not considered the contentions of the petitioner in the appeal in their true perspective. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is aged 70 years, he should not have been saddled with the liability to pay maintenance @ Rs. 1000/ - to the second respondent, it is contended. It is also contended that the order of the learned Magistrate restraining him from alienating the property ought to have been interfered with as it is illegal and that the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction was wrongly declined.

(3.) SECTION 2(a) of Act defines the term 'aggrieved person' as hereunder: - -