Madras High Court
V.Veyilmuthu vs V.Parvathavardhini on 2 February, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
V.Veyilmuthu ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
V.Parvathavardhini ... Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 passed by
the VI Additional Sessions City Civil Court at Chennai in C.A.No.140 of 2012
which modified the order dated 01.03.2012 passed by the XXIII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Saidapet in Crl.M.P.No.5268 of 2008.
For Petitioner : Ms.Abirami Prabhu
For M/s.BFS Legal
For Respondent : Mr.M.Yokesh
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the
judgment of the VI Additional Sessions City Civil Court, Chennai, dated
27.01.2017 in C.A.No.140 of 2012, which modified the order of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 01.03.2012 made in
Crl.M.P.No.5268 of 2008.
2. The revision petitioner before me is the husband. The respondent
wife has filed a petition before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,
Chennai under the Domestic Violence Act by claiming various reliefs like (i)
Protection order (ii) prohibitive order (iii) order of maintenance and
(iv)Compensation. It is alleged by the respondent wife that the petitioner and
herself got married on 19.02.2000 and thereafter, they were living together as
husband and wife at Mukkani and thereafter, lived in the house situated at
No.25/9, 4th cross street, Indira Nagar, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai-87; on the
allegations that her husband had concealed his earlier marriage with one
Gandha and that he got one daughter through her, he married the respondent;
when she questioned him about this, he filed a divorce petition before the Sub
Court, Tuticorin in H.M.O.P.No.114 of 2001, which has been subsequently
transferred to the Family Court, Chennai; the petitioner had also ill treated the
respondent by causing physical violence, emotional violence and seized her
jewels and attempted to dispossess her from her residence. By alleging the
above said reasons, the respondent has filed the Domestic Violence petition for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
claiming the reliefs of protection order, prohibitive order, maintenance order and
compensation.
3. During the enquiry proceedings, on the side of the respondent
wife two witnesses were examined as PW.1 and PW.2 and five (5) documents
have been marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. On the side of the revision
petitioner/husband no witness has been examined and no document was
marked.
4. After the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, the learned
Magistrate dismissed the petition. Aggrieved over that, the wife filed a Criminal
Appeal before the VI Additional Sessions City Civil Court, Chennai in
C.A.No.140 of 2012. After hearing the appeal, the learned appellate Judge had
modified the order of the trial Judge and granted the relief of protection order,
prohibitive order and order of maintenance to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per
month and ordered to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved over that,
the husband has preferred this criminal revision case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the
petitioner and the respondent lived together as husband and wife hardly for a
few months and thereafter, they got separated; in fact the respondent has filed a
maintenance case in M.C.No.1 of 2002 before the Judicial Magistrate,
Sathankulam, as early as in the year 2002, only because they got separated at
that time itself; the house in which, the respondent claims to be residing in the
house belonged to one Ponnaiyan; but neither the petitioner nor the respondent
is residing there; in fact the communications sent to the respondent to the said
address got returned by stating that the respondent was not residing there; the
petitioner himself is an old man who is dependant on someone for his routine
life and the respondent is in the habit of filing litigation after litigation against
the petitioner and pulling him to Court; the learned trial Judge has appreciated
the materials available on record in a correct perspective and hence the order of
the trial Judge should be restored by setting aside the order of the appellate
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that despite
the maintenance was ordered in M.C.No.1 of 2002 as early as on 27.02.2002,
the petitioner omitted to pay the maintenance by complying the order of the
Court; the learned appellate Judge has observed in the judgment itself that the
original owner Ponnaiyan had deposed evidence that the respondent came to his
house as a tenant by telling him that, she was married to the revision
petitioner/husband and subsequently the petitioner/husband had purchased the
same property; the learned appellate Judge had observed that the petitioner had
caused physical violence and emotional violence even in the presence of the
house owner Ponnaiyan; the learned appellate Judge had also observed that the
petitioner continued to pay the electrical charges and drainage charges for the
house which stood in the name of Ponnaiyan; since these facts were omitted to
be appreciated by the learned trial Judge, the learned appellate Judge re-
appreciated the evidence and passed the right order and granted protection
order, prohibitive order, maintenance order and compensation; hence the
revision case should be dismissed.
8. Points for consideration:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
Whether the order of the learned appellate Judge granting
protection order, prohibitive order, order of maintenance for Rs.5,000/- p.m.
and the award of compensation of Rs.50,000/- is fair and proper?
9. The fact that the revision petitioner and the respondent got
married on 19.02.2000 was not denied. The contention of the petitioner is that
immediately after sometime of their marriage they got separated and they have
been living separately. It is true that the respondent wife filed a maintenance
petition in the year 2002 for claiming maintenance in M.C.No.1 of 2002 before
the Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam. But the claim of the respondent is that
even subsequent to that they have been living together and lastly they lived at
No.25/9, 4th cross street, Indira Nagar, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai-87. There is
no dispute with regard to the ownership of the house. It is admitted by both
parties that the original owner of the house was Ponnaiyan. The trial Court has
observed that one of the witnesses for the petitioner PW.2 Chandra has stated
that the petitioner had purchased the house from Ponnaiyan. But the appellate
Court has observed that the Ponnaiyan himself has examined as PW.2 and he
has stated in his evidence that the petitioner had purchased the property
subsequently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
10. Whoever might be the witness examined before the Court, the
fact remains that at the time when the domestic violence petition was filed there
was a house in the said property and the respondent was residing there, to
substantiate the above facts i.e. the electricity receipts and other receipts
pertaining to the house belonging to one Ponnaiya and that was also admitted
by the petitioner himself before the Court. When that being the case, it cannot
be denied that there was no house existed in the said address as stated by the
respondent. Even for the sake of arguments, it is taken as there was no house in
the said address and the petitioner also did not reside there, there is no harm in
passing the prohibitive order from restraining him not to go to the property and
cause any disturbance. The additional typed set filed by the petitioner shows
that one Marimuthu filed a suit against the original owner Ponnaiyan, alleging
that the respondent had executed a lease deed in his favour by making a right
over the property by virtue of an order passed in C.A.No.140 of 2012 and
sought relief of injunction. Strangely in the said suit, the respondent was not
made as a party. Even in the list of documents, house tax receipts were annexed
as documents. So in all probabilities it might be a case filed without the
knowledge of the respondent. Still the said documents would also prove that
there was a house in the said property and for which, house tax is being paid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
11. The respondent/wife has also equally told that she does not
have any avocation. She does not have any other income to maintain herself. It
is claimed by the petitioner that he got divorce order against her and at no point
of time he was living with her in the alleged address. In support of his
contention he also filed a letter obtained from the Superintendent of Post, that
the money order which was sent to the address shown by the respondent got
“returned to sender”. But it is seen that the said letter contained the address as
“No.25, 4th Cross street, Indira Nagar, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai-87”. The
address claimed by the respondent is “No.25/9, 4th Cross street, Indira Nagar,
Alwarthirunagar, Chennai-87.” The discrepancy in the door number probably
might be the reason for the letters being returned to the sender.
12. Apart from that, the appellate Court has passed a protection
order that the petitioner should not harass the respondent in any manner. No
harm is going to be caused to the petitioner by the protection order if he is a law
abiding person. The next grievance of the petitioner is that he was ordered to
pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m., as maintenance in the petition filed under the
Domestic Violence Act. In earlier petition in MC.No.1 of 2002 was also filed for
the same relief and in which a sum of Rs.500/- p.m., is ordered to be the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
maintenance payable by the petitioner. Despite the earlier order for maintenance
is passed, the petitioner continued to violate the same by not paying any
maintenance. The respondent wife is also a helpless woman and she does not
have any other source of income. The maintenance amount if any paid by the
petitioner in compliance of the earlier order, can be set off against the present
order. But it is seen from the earlier order of this Court that the petitioner was
making payment of Rs.2,500/- only per month as an conditional order for
staying the order of the Court below. In the existing cost of living and other
basic necessities of life, awarding of maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- p.m.,
is very much reasonable. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that a sum of Rs.5,000/- p.m., is still a huge amount for the petitioner, since he
is an old person and he is only working as skilled labourer. It is also submitted
that he is ready for any one time settlement. But such a possibility could have
been worked out during the long phase in which various litigations between the
petitioner and the respondent was pending.
13. It is seen from the records that there are some other
proceedings pending between the parties before the Family Court. The parties
are at liberty to work out for any One Time Settlement. Taking into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
consideration of the occupation and other circumstances of the petitioner, I feel
the maintenance amount alone can be reduced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,500/- per
month and the rest of the orders should be allowed to be unaltered.
14. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed
and the judgment of the VI Additional Sessions City Civil Court, Chennai, dated
27.01.2017 made in C.A.No.140 of 2012 is modified to the effect that the the
petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month towards maintenance instead
of Rs.5,000/- per month. Except this modification, all other orders stand
confirmed.
02.02.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rpl
To
1.The III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
R.N.MANJULA.,J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
rpl
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2017
02.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
