Raghu vs R.Leela
2022 Latest Caselaw 7028 Mad

                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 05.04.2022

                                                          CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

                                     Orders Reserved On      Orders Pronounced On
                                         22.03.2022                 05.04.2022

                                               Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017
                                             and Crl.M.P.No.11302 of 2017

                     1.Raghu
                     2.Krishnaveni
                     3.Annamalai
                     4.Lakshmi
                     5.Dhanasekaran
                     6.Ramu                                                  ... Petitioners

                                                           Vs.

                     1.R.Leela
                     2.Minor Mesha Shree
                     3.Minor Aswetha Shree                                   ... Respondents

                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
                     Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records on the file of the learned
                     Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu in
                     C.A.No.45 of 2015 by judgment dated 03.08.2017 partly modifying and
                     confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Judicial

                     1/18



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                         Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017


                     Magistrate, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District, made in M.C.No.2 of
                     2014 dated 29.10.2015 and set aside the same.


                                              For Petitioners     :     Mr.T.R.Ravi

                                              For Respondents :         Mr.D.Selvaraju

                                                                ORDER

The petitioners who are the respondents in M.C.No.2 of 2014 are

facing trial under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act

filed by the respondents seeking protection order under Sections 17, 18, 19,

20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act, filed the present Criminal Revision Petition.

2.The gist of the complaint is that the marriage between the first

petitioner and the first respondent took place on 09.03.2008 as per the

Hindu customs. During their marriage, the first petitioner was presented

with 11.25 sovereigns of gold jewels, Rs.10,000/- for the dresses and

Rs.3,00,000/- worth of household articles. Further, the first respondent was

presented with 40 sovereigns of gold jewels. After some time, the first

petitioner insisted for a two wheeler, a sum of Rs.60,000/- was given in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

cash. After the marriage, both the first petitioner and the first respondent

were residing at No.56, Malai Nagar, Acharapakkam along with other

petitioners. At the instigation of petitioners 2 to 6, the first petitioner

demanded a car, hence, a Tata Indica car was presented. Out of their

wedlock, the respondents 2 and 3 were born to them. The first petitioner

further demanded properties, particularly, the property which was settled by

the first respondent's mother. During the marriage life, the first respondent

was always forced to get articles from her parents, she also obliged the

same, despite that she was treated like a slave. On 10.11.2012, the first

respondent lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station,

Melmaruvathur. During enquiry, the first petitioner appeared, gave an

undertaking that hereafter he would take care of his wife properly and

hence, the complaint was withdrawn. Later, the first petitioner gave a false

complaint as though the respondents herein were found missing, when

action was proposed to be taken for the false complaint, the first respondent

intervened and action was dropped. On 19.04.2013, the petitioners herein

joined together, undressed the first respondent and attempted to douse her

with kerosene and set fire. The first respondent relieved herself, went to her

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

parents place and thereafter, again lodged a complaint on 27.04.2013.

Suppressing all these facts, the first petitioner filed a petition for divorce

before the Sub Court, Madurantakam and managed to get an exparte order

in his favour despite the first respondent was living together with the first

petitioner. Further, the first petitioner denied food, shelter, clothing and

basic amenities to the respondents. Hence, the respondents filed a petition

in M.C.No.2 of 2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Maduranthakam seeking protection from the petitioners not to disturb the

respondents from residing at No.26, Malai Nagar, Acharapakkam, further

sought for Rs.25,000/- as maintenance, return of 51.25 sovereigns of gold

jewels presented to the first respondent, diamond stud, Rs.60,000/- cash

given for purchase of two wheeler, Rs.3,00,000/- worth of household

articles, birth certificate, educational certificate of the respondents and

sought Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the

respondents.

3.Before the Trail Court, the first respondent examined herself as

P.W.1, marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P18, the first petitioner examined as R.W.1 and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R17. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court passed a

protection order directing the respondents to reside at No.26, Malai Nagar,

Acharapakkam and directed the petitioners not to disturb them. The Trial

Court further directed the first petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of

Rs.25,000/- per month, return the gold jewels of 51.25 sovereigns,

Rs.60,000/- cash received for purchase of two wheeler, hand over all the

documents of the respondents, family ration card and further, directed the

petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the mental

agony suffered by the respondents. Aggrieved against the same, the

petitioners preferred an appeal in C.A.No.45 of 2015 before the learned

Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu. The

Lower Appellate Court by judgment dated 03.08.2017 partly allowed the

appeal by setting aside the order of the Trial Court in respect of return of

sum of Rs.60,000/- received for purchase of two wheeler and in respect of

compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid for the mental agony of

the respondents. Further, in respect of monthly maintenance, the Lower

Appellate Court directed the first petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per

month [Rs.4,000/- for each of the respondents] instead of Rs.25,000/- as

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

directed by the Trial Court and in respect of other reliefs, the order of the

Trial Court was confirmed. Against which, the present revision is filed.

4.The contention of the petitioners is that both the Courts below

without proper application of mind and appreciation of the facts passed an

erroneous order and there is no evidence or materials produced by the

respondents to prove her case. Further, there is no iota of evidence against

the petitioners 2 to 6. The first petitioner is the estranged husband, the

second and third petitioners are the mother-in-law and father-in-law, fourth

and fifth petitioners are the sister and her husband, the sixth petitioner is the

brother-in-law of the first respondent. The admitted case of the respondents

is that after the marriage, the first petitioner and the first respondent were

residing separately in Guduvanchery and as such roping in the entire family

members of first petitioner is only to brook vengeance, which is not proper.

The first petitioner and the first respondent were residing in Guduvanchery,

is confirmed with the fact that the second respondent was born in SRM

Hospital, Kattankalathur, nearby place to their residence in Guduvanchery.

It is admitted by the first respondent that she was consulting her family

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

Doctor who was serving in SRM Hospital, Kattankalathur. Likewise, the

second daughter/third respondent was born in Adi Parasakthi Hospital,

Melmaruvathur, which near to her parents house in Acharapakkam. Thus, it

is not in dispute that she was living separately in Guduvanchery initially and

thereafter with her parents. The petitioners and the first respondent are

close relatives. The first respondent's mother is none other than the paternal

Aunt of the first petitioner. Apart from the case under Domestic Violence

Act, there are other cases pending.

5.The first petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2013 seeking for

divorce and on coming to know about the same, as a counter blast, the first

respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in

H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2014. Both the cases were disposed of by a common

judgment by the Sub Court, Madurantakam on 18.09.2019, in which there

have been lot of admissions by the first respondent which was highlighted

in the common judgment. With regard to the presentation of sridhana

articles, the specific case of the first petitioner is that during the

engagement, he presented five sovereigns of gold chain, one carat of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

diamond ring and a silk saree worth Rs.25,000/- to the first respondent, in

return, the first respondent's family presented him with 5.30 sovereigns of

gold ring. Further, during the marriage 20 sovereigns of gold jewels was

presented to the first respondent by her parents, five sovereigns of gold

jewels and household articles. This contention was not denied by the first

respondent which is a finding, likewise, the birth of the respondents 2 and 3

is discussed. With regard to the purchase of Tata Indica car, it is confirmed

that the car still stands in the name of the first respondent's father. Further,

the bank statement and the documents produced by the first petitioner would

show that the monthly EMI, insurance and tax for the car was paid by the

first petitioner. Further, the Sub Court, Madurantakam on examination of

the first petitioner, first respondent, their evidence and documents, dealt

with the sridhana articles, demand of dowry, harassment and the first

respondent's voluntary deserting the matrimonial home by giving reasons.

6.It is further submitted that the first respondent being the only

daughter to her parents and her brother, an Advocate are instrumental for

the misunderstanding and separation in the family life. Though they are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

close relatives, the first petitioner was not allowed to be independent on his

own, initially a separate home was set up at Guduvanchery and even for

small disputes, she would immediately go to her parents house, each time

the first petitioner would go there, convince her and bring her back. The

first respondent's family were using physical force and at times, assaulted

the first petitioner as well as his parents. In one of the incident, the first

petitioner was chappalled in front of the police station, there were several

criminal complaints lodged by the first respondent to the All Women Police

Station, Guduvanchery, Acharapakkam and other Police Station, thus

causing continuous humiliation and harassment. Finally, the learned Sub

Judge, Madurantakam allowed H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2013 filed by the first

petitioner seeking divorce and dismissed H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2014 filed by

the first respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Further, as

regards the residential right, already DVAC case is pending, the Lower

Court given interim direction, hence the same was not considered and with

regard to the other aspects, the Lower Court given a finding. Further,

arraying petitioners 2 to 6 as accused is unwarranted and they are arrayed to

cause harassment. The major allegation against the petitioners 2 to 6 is that

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

on 27.04.2013, the first respondent lodged a complaint stating that on

19.04.2013, she was undressed, brutally beaten, kicked and she also

sustained blood injuries, she cried in pain seeking help, at that time, the

petitioners 2 to 6 came there, further instigated and abetted the first

petitioner to continue his assault and they forcibly obtained signature from

the first respondent in the blank stamp papers. It is further submitted that

in one breath, the first respondent claims 33 cents of property in

S.No.31/4/1 at Malai Nagar, Acharapakkam, which was earlier settled to his

mother by her maternal grandfather, for which she filed a civil suit in

O.S.No.207 of 2015 which is pending before the District Munsif Court,

Madurantakam. Later for the same property, she seeks protection order as

though she is chased out of the matrimonial home, thus, she takes

contradictory stand as per her convenience. The first petitioner was living

separately and only after the first respondent deserted her matrimonial

home, he is residing with his parents, namely, the petitioners 2 and 3. The

third and fourth petitioners already married and living separately.

7.It is further submitted that due to the act of the first respondent, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

petitioner lost his job, on the complaint made to the Management when he

was about to be terminated, he made a decent exit by resigning from the job

and now working in a private firm with a meagre salary of Rs.7,000/-. The

first respondent wanted the first petitioner to act as per the dictums of her

family members. Whenever the first petitioner showed his individuality, he

was man handled and severely beaten, in some instances, even muscle men

were brought in and the entire family members of the petitioners were

beaten badly. It is further submitted that as regards the petitioners 2 to 6, no

protection order was sought against them. As regards the first petitioner,

the Sub Court already given a finding and further, 20 sovereigns of jewels

presented during the marriage was also taken back when she left the

matrimonial home which is not disputed in the other proceedings. The

judgment of the Sub Court is now under appeal in C.M.A.Nos.27 and 28 of

2019 before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, wherein the sridhana

articles issue can be decided.

8.The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that marriage

between the first petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

09.03.2008 as per the Hindu customs. During the marriage, 40 sovereigns

of gold jewels were given to the first respondent, 10 sovereigns of gold

jewels was presented to the first petitioner, for purchase of two wheeler

Rs.60,000/- cash was given, further, Rs.3 lakhs worth household articles

were also given. After the marriage, both the first petitioner and the first

respondent were living at No.26, Malai Nagar, Acharapakkam. Further,

apart from the sridhana articles, a Tata Indica car was demanded and

presented to the first petitioner. Out of their wedlock, the second

respondent was born on 18.12.2008 and the third respondent was born on

31.08.2010. He further submitted that slowly all the petitioners joined

together, harassed the first respondent and forced her to get landed

properties and were regularly making one demand or other. In one of the

accident, the first respondent was doused with kerosene and attempted to set

fire and she lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station,

Melmaruvathur. When the first petitioner appeared for enquiry, he gave an

undertaking that thereafter he would treat the first respondent properly and

hence, the complaint was withdrawn. On the contrary, she further subjected

her to harassment, in one of the incident, the first respondent was undressed,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

beaten brutally and she sustained blood injuries. Again she lodged a

complaint and stayed with her parents. Further, the first respondent was

deliberately not allowed to attend any of the family functions. The

petitioners were keen and forcing the first respondent to settle 33 cents of

her family property, settled to her by her mother and all steps taken for

reconciliation failed. The first petitioner not only chased her away from the

matrimonial home but also failed to take care of his children, neglected to

maintain them, hence, the first respondent filed a petition in M.C.No.2 of

2014. The Trial Court on perusing the evidence and materials given

protection orders. In the appeal, the protection order was modified directing

the first petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the respondents and return

back 51.25 sovereigns of gold jewels which was retained by the petitioners.

But the first petitioner suppressing his real income and projecting as though

he is earning lesser income, failed to pay the maintenance amount. Further,

as regards the dismissal of H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2014 and allowing

H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2013, the first respondent filed appeals in C.M.A.Nos.27

and 28 of 2019, which is pending before the Principal District Court,

Chengalpattu and as regards the residential protection, the Trial Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

already given a protection order. Further, the petitioners 2 to 6 are

instrumental and abetting the first petitioner in causing harassment and

subjecting the first respondent to cruelty. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of

this revision petition.

9.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials

placed before this Court, it is not in dispute that the first petitioner and the

first respondent are close relatives even before the marriage, there seems to

be some dispute which is amplified due to the egoistic fight between the

families. The family status, background and their financial capabilities are

known to each other. The first respondent's family appears to be better

placed, compared to the petitioners family. As regards the protection with

regard to residence, the Trial Court had already given a protection order, in

respect of Rs.60,000/- cash given for purchase of two wheeler and

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- which was ordered by the Trial Court, was

set aside by the Lower Appellate Court and against which, no appeal filed.

Further, the order of the Trial Court to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month

as maintenance was modified by the Lower Appellate Court to pay a sum of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

Rs.12,000/- per month considering the financial capability, earning capacity

of the first petitioner and way of life, further directed the petitioners to hand

over 51.25 sovereigns of gold jewels to the first respondent. Further, on

perusal of the judgment in H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2013 and H.M.O.P.No.36 of

2014 wherein specific and categorical finding given, which is now pending

before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu in C.M.A.Nos.27 and 28

of 2019 . In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that as regards

the claim and counter claim for the sridhana articles, it would be appropriate

to be decided by the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu in

C.M.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2019.

10.Since in respect of petitioners 2 to 6, no relief was sought for, the

petitioners 2 to 6 are hereby discharged and relieved from all the

proceedings.

11.Further, in respect of the first petitioner, the order of the Lower

Appellate Court directing him to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month to the

respondents as maintenance is hereby confirmed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

12.In the result, the judgment, dated 29.10.2015 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District in M.C.No.2 of

2014 modified by the judgment dated 03.08.2017 by the learned Principal

Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu in C.A.No.45 of 2015

is further modified and confirmed with regard to payment of maintenance

alone. The first petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month

as maintenance as directed by the Lower Appellate Court from the date of

order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram

District in M.C.No.2 of 2014. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition

is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

05.04.2022 Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cse

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

To

1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu.

2.The Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

cse

Pre-delivery order made in

Crl.R.C.No.1180 of 2017

05.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis