Madras High Court
Sofia Rani vs Saranya on 27 June, 2022
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 27.06.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015
Sofia Rani .. Petitioner in
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 & 37 of 2015
/versus/
Saranya .. Respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.36 of 2015
1.Lawrance
2.Henry .. Respondents in
Crl.R.C.No.37 of 2015
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.36 of 2015: This Criminal Revision Case has
been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the
order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Salem in C.A.No.60 of
2014 dated 27.08.2014 reversing Judicial Magistrate No.1 of Mettur in
C.M.P.No.1360 of 2010 dated 08.04.2014.
Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.37 of 2015: This Criminal Revision Case has
been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the
order passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Salem in C.A.No.59 of
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015
2014 dated 27.08.2014 partly reversing Judicial Magistrate No.1 of Mettur
in C.M.P.No.1360 of 2010 dated 08.04.2014.
For Petitioner :Mr. A.Sundaravadhanan
in both cases
For Respondents :Mr.S.Doraisamy for
Mr.V.Elangovan in
Crl.R.C.No.36 of 2015
Mr.T.Jayaramaraj
for respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.37 of 2015
-----------
COMMON ORDER
These revision petitions are arising out of the common order passed
by the appellate Court partly allowing the appeals in Crl.A.Nos.59 & 60 of
2014, dated 27/08/2014.
2. The facts involved in this case is that one Sofia Rani/revision
petitioner married Lawrance, the first respondent in Crl.R.C.No.37 of 2015
on 19.08.1998. Two female children were born out of wedlock. Since the
revision petitioner has begotten only female children, her husband
(Lawrance) started harassing her and also developed intimacy with one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015
Saranya/4th accused in her complaint. Thereafter, on the instigation of said
Saranya, the petitioner herein was driven out of the matrimonial house. The
first respondent (Lawrance) is living with the fourth respondent and also
she begotten a female child to her. In the said circumstances, the petition
under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act filed for
praying an order of maintenance and protection.
3. The trial Court, after considering the merits of the case, awarded
Rs.5,000/- monthly maintenance for the petitioner/Sofia Rani and
Rs.2,500/- each for the two daughters, besides awarded compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the first respondent (Lawrance) and Rs.50,000/-
payable by the fourth respondent (Saranya) and also Rs.50,000/- payable by
the second respondent (Henry), who is the father-in-law of the petitioner.
This order of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur was challenged by the first
respondent and the second respondent before II Additional Sessions Court,
Salem in Crl.A.No.59 of 2014. The fourth respondent/Saranya also filed a
separate appeal in Crl.A.No.60 of 2014 challenging the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015
4. The appellate Court considering the evidence and documents set
aside the order of the trial Court in respect of the compensation awarded.
However, the appellate Court confirmed the trial Court order of payment of
monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- for the petitioner and
Rs.2,500/- each to two daughters and other protection sought by the
petitioner. Aggrieved by the disallowed portion of the compensation, the
present Criminal Revision Cases are filed in Crl.R.C.No.36 and 37 of 2015.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted
that when the trial Court after considering the fact and holding that the
petitioner was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and
family members including her paramour/fourth respondent likely awarded
maintenance and compensation. However, the appellate Court, without
assigning any reason has set aside the order of compensation in entirety
without proper application of mind. Particularly, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that, relying upon the Clause VI in
Form 2, Rule 6(1) submitted by the petitioner herein seeking Rs.20,000/- as
compensation, the appellate Court has found, the trial Court order of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015
awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/-
payable by the first respondent, second respondent and the fourth
respondent respectively and set aside the entire component of compensation
which is against the principle of compensation for the damages cost.
6. While the appellate Court has confirmed that the fact the fourth
respondent/ Saranya has enticed Lawrance (first respondent) and she is
living with him has been proved, the mental cruelty caused thereby she need
to be adequately compensated. While the trial Court has rightly
compensated, the appellate Court has set aside the award of compensation
entirety quoting that the petitioner has sought only Rs.20,000/- as
compensation. Even if the claim is Rs.20,000/-, when there is justifiable
reason to award more, higher compensation can be awarded. But the trial
Court has rightly on appreciation of evidence has awarded higher
compensation but without assigning any reason, the appellate Court has
totally set aside the award of compensation on the ground that the petitioner
has sought only Rs.20,000/- as compensation. Even if it is so, the appellate
Court ought to have at least awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent in Crl.R.C.No.36
of 2015 submitted that the respondent/Saranya is not a member of the
family and there is no evidence to show that she is form part of the family
and therefore, she will not fall within the definition of member of the family
and scope and ambit of Domestic Violence Act. Further more, it is also
contended that if at all the petitioner is entitled for any compensation or
maintenance, she can seek remedy only against her husband and his family
members and not against the fourth respondent.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who are the
husband and father-in-law of the defacto complainant in Crl.R.C.No.37 of
2015 submitted that, the first respondent/Lawrence is paying the
maintenance regularly. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner
herein, the Mettur Police has registered a criminal complaint for the offence
under Section 497 of IPC etc. and after the investigation, final report was
filed and the same is pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Mettur.
Therefore, he submitted that there cannot be a parallel prosecution under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015
the Domestic Violence Act. Further more, there is no need to pay
compensation. Hence, the order of the appellate Court has to be confirmed.
9. On considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that both the
trial Court as well as the appellate Court had not assigned any reason for
awarding the compensation or disallowing the compensation part. Atleast
the trial Court had discussed that the petitioner herein is entitled for
compensation but even then no reason assigned for awarding a sum of
Rs.1,50,000/-; Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. The appellate
Court while pointing out that the award is more and above the claim, had
not assigned any reason to set aside the award in toto.
10. In the said circumstances, though the matter has already been
pending before this Court for the past 7 years, in the light of the fact that the
Court, which awarded compensation for damages, had failed to assign
reason, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. The common judgment
of the Appellate Court viz., II Additional Sessions Court, Salem in
Crl.A.Nos.59 and 60 of 2014 dated 27.08.2014 is set aside. Further, these
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015
cases are remanded back to the appellate Court for fresh consideration to
decide the compensation component alone. The appellate Court shall
dispose of the appeals in Crl.A.Nos.59 and 60 of 2014 preferably within a
period of 3 months, from the date of receipt of a copy of the records.
27.06.2022
Index:yes/no
ari
To:
1.The 2nd Additional Sessions Court, Salem.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1 of Mettur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari
Crl.R.C.Nos.36 and 37 of 2015
27.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
