Criminal Revision Petition Can Be Preferred Against Sessions Court Order U/S. 29 Domestic Violence Act; Original Petition Under Article 227 Not Maintainable: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court held that a person aggrieved by an order of the Sessions Court under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act can prefer a criminal revision petition.
The Court observed that resorting to Article 227 of the Constitution is an “absolute bar” when the impugned order is a final order or the judgment in an appeal before the Sessions Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, “Hence, notwithstanding the power under Article 227 being not circumscribed by any limitation, still, its exercise is limited to exceptional circumstances. When the impugned order is a final order or the judgment in an appeal before the Sessions Court, resort to Article 227 is almost an absolute bar.”
Advocate Shaji Chirayath appeared for the petitioner, while PP Vivek Venugopal represented the respondents.
The Husband (Petitioner) challenged the order under Section 29 of the DV Act directing him to pay monthly maintenance to his wife under Section 12 of the DV Act.
The appeal was dismissed by the sessions court by the impugned order, after which, the Petitioner preferred this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the appellate court.
The High Court had to determine whether an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India be preferred against a judgment in an appeal filed under Section 29 of the DV Act.
“When the intention of the statute, as is evident from Section 28 of DV Act, is to make the provisions of the Cr.P.C applicable to petitions under Section 12 of DV Act, in the absence of any specific exclusion, a challenge against an order under Section 29 of DV Act also has to be through the procedure under Cr.P.C itself,” the Court explained.
The Court endorsed the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) wherein the Bench held that since the DV Act did not exclude the application of the provisions of Cr.P.C to an appeal under Section 29, the normal remedies available against the judgment and order issued by a court of sessions in appeal and revisions prescribed under the Cr.P.C before the High Court, are available against an order passed in appeal under Section 29.
“An appeal against any order in an application under Section 12 of the DV Act is to be preferred before a court of Sessions under Section 29 of the DV Act. Therefore, when the procedure prescribed for an application under section 12 of the DV Act is as per Cr.P.C and the appeal against any such order is also to the Sessions Court, necessarily, the revisional jurisdiction available under the criminal procedure code has to be available to an aggrieved person,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court held that “a person aggrieved by an order of the Sessions Court under Section 29 of the DV Act can prefer a criminal revision petition.”
Accordingly, the High Court sustained the objection raised by the Registry.
Cause Title: C.K Kunjumon v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:IO:KER:29)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Shaji Chirayath, Raju Joseph, Jiji M. Varkey, M.K.Safeela Beevi, Savitha Ganapathiyatan and M.M.Shajahan
Respondents: PP, Advocate Vivek Venugopal (Amicus Curiae)
