K.Senthil @ Veerappan vs Indhumathi
2022 Latest Caselaw 10236 Mad

                                                                                        Crl.R.C.No.89 of 2022
                                                                            and Crl.M.P.Nos.922 & 930 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 15.06.2022

                                                       CORAM :

                     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

                                                Crl.R.C.No.89 of 2022
                                                         and
                                            Crl.M.P.Nos.922 & 930 of 2022

           1. K.Senthil @ Veerappan
           2. K.Amsa                                                            ... Appellants

                                                        Versus
           Indhumathi                                                            ... Respondent


           Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed u/s. 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside
            the order dated 29.04.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2019, on the file of
            the III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, by confirming the order dated
            17.02.2016 passed in Crl.M.P.No.837 of 2015 in M.C.NO.4 of 2015 on the file of
            the Judicial Magistrate III (FAC), Puducherry.

                                      For Appellant    : Mr.S.Sairaman

                                      For Respondent   : Mr.P.veeraraghavan

                                                        *****




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
            1/4
                                                                                     Crl.R.C.No.89 of 2022
                                                                         and Crl.M.P.Nos.922 & 930 of 2022




                                                  JUDGMENT

This Criminal Revision petition is filed by the petitioner husband, aggrieved

by the protection order passed for protecting the possession of respondent wife in

respect of the shared household.

2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, both side learned counsel

represented and confirmed the fact that the respondent wife is not in possession of

the shared household and as a matter of fact, living with her parents separately and

therefore, even though, such an order of protection is passed, that is only in paper

and cannot be given effect to.

3. In such view of the matter, the finding that the respondent wife is in

possession of the shared household is incorrect, therefore, the said order is liable to

interferred with. It is also accepted by the learned counsel for the respondent wife

that in the event of payment of interim maintenance, she will prefer to be in her

parents house.

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

Crl.R.C.No.89 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.922 & 930 of 2022

4. In view of the matter, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the

order of the Judicial Magistrate III (FAC), Puducherry made in Crl.M.P.No.837 of

2015 dated 17.01.2016 and the consequential order in Crl.A.No.11 of 2016 dated

29.04.2021 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry are set aside.

15.06.2022

Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order sma

To

1. III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.

2. Judicial Magistrate III (FAC), Puducherry.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

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

Crl.R.C.No.89 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.922 & 930 of 2022

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

sma

Crl.R.C.No.89 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.Nos.922 & 930 of 2022

15.06.2022 (1/2)

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