Aggrieved person can challenge order of Sessions Court under Section 29 of DV Act by filing revision petition: Kerala High Court

The verdict was announced by Judge Bechu Kurian Thomas in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the decision of the District Court which had dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff's wife had approached the first class District Court under Section 12 of the DV Act and obtained a maintenance order against the plaintiff. A challenge to that order was dismissed by the District Court.

Although the DV Act is a civil law, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) is applicable to certain sections of the Act. Section 28 of the Act states that the Cr.PC is applicable to Section 12 under which an application is made in the court. The order of the Magistrate can be appealed to the District Court under Section 29 of the Act. The Act does not mention whether the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable to Section 29.

The applicant submitted that Cr.PC did not apply beyond the stage of the Court of First Instance and that, therefore, beyond that stage, he was not entitled to the remedies available to him under Cr.PC.

The court referred to a decision of the plenary session in Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) where it was held that since there is nothing to bar the application of Cr.PC to the appellate provision, the normal remedies of appeal and revision before the Supreme Court against the order of the Sessions Court are available. The Kerala High Court stated that it agreed with this view of the Allahabad High Court.

The Court held that the original application before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act is governed by Cr.PC and the appeal against the order of the Magistrate is before the Session Court. Against the order of the Session Court, therefore, the remedy of criminal revision can be taken under Cr.PC. The Court observed that the application of Cr.PC to Section 12 is intended and is intended to be applicable to all proceedings initiated under that section.

Counsel for the plaintiff: Attorneys Shaji Chirayath, Raju Joseph, Jiji M Varkey, MK Safeela Beevi, Savitha Ganapathiyatan, MM Shajahan

Case number: OP (Crl.) 223 0f 2024 (file no.)

Case Title: CK Kunjumon v. State of Kerala and another

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554