Madras High Court
A.D.Velayudham vs M.Malathi on 27 April, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.No.2860 of 2016
A.D.Velayudham ... Petitioner
Versus
M.Malathi ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of
Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment passed in the above appeal dated
26.11.2015 by the learned XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai
against C.C.No.3472 of 2011, X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai – 8.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Saravanan,
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Priyadharshini
Legal Aid Counsel
*********
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is filed to set aside the judgment made in
Crl.A.No.238 of 2015 dated 26.11.2015 by the learned XVI Additional
City Civil Court, Chennai, against the order in C.C.No.3472 of 2011
dated 14.07.2014 by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai.
2. The petitioner is the respondent in a Domestic Violence
complaint filed by the respondent in C.C.No.3472 of 2011. The
respondent had lodged a complaint to the Protection Officer on
01.06.2011. In the complaint she had stated that her father had given an
advertisement for alliance in the Hindu and on seeing the same, the
petitioner's mother contacted her and thereafter she had persisted and
pressurized to marry the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is the Doctor who lost his wife in a train accident
and he is with a child. Taking pity on the child, she had sacrificed her
life and agreed to the parents to be the second wife of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
During the marriage customary sreedhana articles were presented. After
the marriage, the respondent was residing along with the petitioner, her
mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law in Sakthi Nagar, Porur
along with Master Surya, son born to the petitioner and his deceased wife
Dr.V.Sumathy.
4. The marriage was solemnized on 29.04.2007 thereafter on
01.06.2007 she was forcefully sent out from the matrimonial home under
the pretext of Aadi month and later she was not allowed into the house.
The respondent gone along with her father and even attended the house
warming function at Nellore. Later giving one reason or other she was
not allowed into the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she lodged a
complaint.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent after the
marriage lived with the petitioner only for a short period of one month.
She insisted the petitioner to leave his parents alone and have a nucleus
family. The petitioner's mother is a cancer patient and father is the heart
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
patient. Further she was too possessive and not allowing to even mingle
with the family members and to be happy with his son Master Surya.
The respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, for which the
petitioner initially filed HMOP.No.131 of 2007 for restitution of conjugal
rights on 19.06.2007 and the same was dismissed for default. Thereafter,
HMOP.No.99 of 2008 was filed seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty.
Coming to know about the filing of this divorce petition, as a counter
blast the respondent filed HMOP.No.149 of 2008 for restitution of
conjugal rights. The Family Court by common judgment dated
28.02.2011 in HMOP.No.99 and 149 of 2008 dismissed the divorce
petition of the petitioner and allowed the restitution of conjugal rights
filed by the respondent. Thereafter, she had not taken any steps to join
the family.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on
the contrary she had lodged a complaint to the Protection Officer on
01.06.2011. In the complaint, she had arrayed her mother-in-law, father-
in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law as respondents R2 to R5. R4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
Sister-in-law was married earlier. The trial Court viz., X Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, finding that the petitioner had suppressed many vital
facts and not come out with the truth and also on the further admission by
the respondent that she wanted a nucleus family and asked the petitioner
to move away from the father and mother being the reason and further
the desertion by the respondent was on her own volition and also finding
that the respondent is a professor in a reputed college and earning a sum
of Rs.30,000/- dismissed the domestic violence petition.
7. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent preferred an appeal
before the Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.238 of 2015 on the file of XVI
Additional Sessions Court. The learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge
by judgment dated 26.11.2015 confirmed the acquittal of the in-laws viz.,
R2 to R5 and set aside the acquittal against the petitioner R1 and passed
a protection order in favour of the respondent directing the petitioner to
provide shelter or alternatively to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 per month and
also pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Assailing this point the present
revision is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
8. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
respondent was chased away from the matrimonial home and the
respondent does not dispute the marriage and the short duration of the
marriage life. She further submitted that the respondent was sent out of
the matrimonial home on 01.06.2007 and thereafter she was not allowed
to enter into the matrimonial home again. This has been clearly stated in
her restitution of conjugal rights petition in HMOP.No.148 of 2008
which was filed during April 2008. She further referred to the domestic
violence complaint and submitted how she was forcefully sent out of
matrimonial home and how she was subjected to cruelty on the ill-advice
of his parents, brother and sister have been clearly narrated. Further on
01.09.2007, the respondent had gone to the house of the petitioner to
collect her jewels and the sarees. At that time, only six sarees were given
and the other articles retained. Thereafter, she approached the Police
complaining that she was beaten by her mother-in-law with a broom stick
and subjected her to physical and mental torture. The petitioner being a
Doctor on the pretext of pursuing his higher education used to stay
mostly in the Hospital guest house and avoided the respondent. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
respondent was made as a baby sitter taking care of petitioner's son and
looking after his parents. Despite the respondent being a Post Graduate
in Engineering, a qualified person she was forced to attend small menial
works and treated as a housemaid. Further the respondent in her
evidence categorically state that the torture was psychological, the
petitioner never used to speak to her. As per Section 22 of the Domestic
Violence Act, mental torture and emotional distress would amount to
domestic violence and they are entitled for appropriate compensation.
9. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper
perspective and acquitted the petitioner finding that the respondent is
employed. The lower appellate Court rightly weighted the materials and
evidence independently and found that the respondent was subjected to
mental torture, ordered protection for residence and also ordered
compensation.
10. Upon considering the submissions and materials available on
record, it is not in dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
the respondent took place on 29.04.2007 and the admitted case of the
respondent is that she left the matrimonial home on 01.06.2007
admittedly they were living together only for about 30 days. Both are
educated, petitioner is a Doctor and the respondent is the Post Graduate
in Engineering, employed as Lecturer. Primarily the dispute arose, since
the respondent forced the petitioner to leave his parents and set up a
independent nucleus family. In our society joint family and living with
parents is common and it is not only common, it is an obligation for
every son to take care of his aged parents. The respondent knowing
about the family background and status of the petitioner had agreed for
the marriage and later forcing the petitioner for a nucleus independent
family is not acceptable. More so when the petitioner's parents are aged
and sick persons. Due to which there seems to be some misunderstanding
and the respondent left the matrimonial home.
11. On the facts of this case, the marriage was in the year 2007
and thereafter the maintenance case was initiated. After four years the
complaint was lodged on 01.06.2011. No reason was given for the delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
The domestic violence complaint should be immediate. The Domestic
Violence Act was enacted to provide immediate speedy relief to the
needy persons. Further from the own admission of the respondent it is
seen that there is no offence made out for any domestic violence. The
trial Court on consideration of the evidence and materials had given a
detailed well reasoned finding, the lower appellate Court, wrongly
appraised the evidence and ordered protection to the respondent which
she is not entitled.
12. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the
judgment made in Crl.A.No.238 of 2015 dated 26.11.2015 by the learned
XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai and confirm the order in
C.C.No.3472 of 2011 dated 14.07.2014 by the learned X Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed, the judgment
made in Crl.A.No.238 of 2015 dated 26.11.2015 by the learned XVI
Additional City Civil Court, Chennai is set aside and the order in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
C.C.No.3472 of 2011 dated 14.07.2014 by the learned X Metropolitan
Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai is confirmed. Consequently, the connected
criminal miscellaneous petition is closed.
14. This Court places special appreciation to the Legal Aid
Counsel Mr.T.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Ms.S.Priyadharshini, learned counsel for the respondent for thorough
preparation and effective submissions made on the case of the petitioner
and the respondent based on the documents that was available with them.
27.04.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
dsa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
To
1.The XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
dsa
Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016
27.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
