Madras High Court
P.Vijayalakshmi vs G.Uthesh on 21 December, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2014
P.Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner
Versus
1. G.Uthesh
2. G.Padmavathi ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in C.A.No.62 of
2013 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge and set aside the order
dated 31.07.2014 and confirm the order dated 18.03.2013 in M.C.No.49 of
2012 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidpaet,
Chennai.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondents : Mr.L.Prakash
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Revision in Crl.RC. No.966 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner
wife, namely, Vijayalakshmi, aggrieved by the order of the learned IV
Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A. No.62 of 2013 dated 31.07.2014,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2014
whereby the learned Sessions Judge, modified the order passed by the
learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in M.C. No.49 of
2001, which is an order passed under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the
Domestic Violence Act.
2.The petitioner herein preferred a complaint under the Domestic
Violence Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate inter alia praying for
interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month and also to permit her to
continue to reside in the shared household situated at No.5, Karpaga
Vinayagar Koil Street, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-32.
3.After hearing the both sides' contention, by an order dated
18.03.2013, the learned Magistrate allowed the petition filed by the wife
ordering that the husband should permit the petitioner wife to continue to
reside in No.5 Karpaga Vinayagar Koil Street, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-32
and the husband should not in any manner disturb the petitioner and that he
should not otherwise dispossess or interfere with her possession in any
manner whatsoever. The Trial Court also ordered a sum of Rs.5,000/- per
month as interim maintenance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2014
4.Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent, namely, the
husband and the second respondent, namely, the mother in law preferred an
appeal in Crl.A. No.62 of 2013 before the learned IV Additional Sessions
Judge, Chennai and by an order dated 31.07.2014, the learned Sessions
Judge, while confirming the interim maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/-, as
far as the order relating to the shared household is concerned, modified the
same by finding the fact that the house actually belongs to her mother in law
and by following the order passed by this Court reported in 2007 (3) CTC
219, modified the shared household order by directing the husband to pay
another sum of Rs.1,500/- towards the rental accommodation that may be
taken by the petitioner wife. Aggrieved by the same, the wife has filed this
present revision case.
5.The present Criminal Revision is of the year 2014. When the
case came up on 05.08.2021, 10.11.2021, 24.11.2021 and 30.11.2021, there
was no representation for the petitioner. However, continuously on the last
three hearings, the learned counsel for the respondents present. He
submitted that pending the Criminal Revision, a divorce was also granted,
but, however, the wife has preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, which is
also pending before the Division Bench of this Court. Even before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2014
Division Bench, a compromise proposal was mooted, as per which, the
respondent husband has agreed to pay a permanent alimony of
Rs.10,00,000/- and settle the issue. Even before this Court, he would submit
that the respondent husband is ready to settle the amount. But, however,
even though he has informed the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
petitioner, they are not repeatedly coming forward to take the amount and
settle the issue.
6.Under these circumstances, considering the limited scope of the
revisional jurisdiction of examining the correctness of the order passed by
the Trial and Appellate Court, this Court took up the revision for
consideration, on merits.
7.I have gone through the judgment of the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court and the other material evidence on record.
8.In my considered view, especially given the fact that alredy a
the divorce has been granted and the matter is pending in appeal, no error
can be found of the Appellate Court's direction that instead of permitting the
wife in continuing in the same house that is No.5 Karpaga Vinayagar Koil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2014
Street, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai-32, she can be permitted to rent any other
house and the husband being directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month
over and above the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-, which he has already
been paying. In that view of the matter, I find no merits in the Revision.
Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.
21.12.2021
Index : Yes/no
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
vga
To
1.The IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai
2.The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2014
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
vga
Crl.R.C.No.966 of 2014
21.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
