D.Anthoni Muthu D Thangaraj vs Twinkle Amala
2022 Latest Caselaw 17845 Mad

                                                                             Crl.R.C.No.736 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                     DATED:28.11.2022

                                                          CORAM:

                                      THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                   Crl.R.C.No.736 of 2021

                     1. D.Anthoni Muthu D Thangaraj

                     2. Juliet Ammal

                     3. L.James                                                  ...    Petitioners

                                                         Vs.
                     Twinkle Amala                                               ...   Respondent


                      Prayer:

                                  Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 & 401 Cr.P.C.,

                     against the order dated 03.12.2020 passed in C.A.No.579 of 2018 on the

                     file of the II Additional Sessions Court at Chennai confirming the order

                     dated 06.03.2014 passed in M.C.No.3848 of 2011 on the file of XVIII

                     M.M.Court at Chennai.

                                       For   Petitioners : No appearance

                                       For Respondent : Mr.K.Selvakumaraswamy


                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.736 of 2021

                                                          ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated

03.12.2020 passed in C.A.No.579 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional

Sessions Court at Chennai, confirming the order dated 06.03.2014 passed in

M.C.No.3848 of 2011 on the file of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The respondent herein filed a petition in M.C.No.3848 of 2011

under Sections 18,20,21,22 and 23 of Domestic Violence Act against the

petitioners herein before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet,

Chennai. The learned Magistrate allowed the petition by directing the

petitioners to pay sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly maintenance to the

respondent herein. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners filed

Crl.A.No.579 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court,

Chennai.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments

advanced on eitherside, considered the materials and also order of the

learned Magistrate, dismissed the appeal, by confirming the order passed by

the learned Magistrate in M.C.No.3848 of 2011. Aggrieved over the same,

the petitioners have filed the present revision case before this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.736 of 2021

3. Despite giving sufficient opportunity, neither the petitioners nor the

counsel for the petitioners appeared and putforth their arguments. Since this

Criminal Revision Case is arising out of concurrent judgement of both the

Courts below that too seeking maintenance amount under the Domestic

Violence Act, this Court is inclined to dispose the revision case on merit,

even in the absence of the revision petitioners.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation

for the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and

perused the materials available on record.

5. The relationship between the parties are not in dispute. Both the

Courts below while considering the status of the parties, ordered Rs.10,000/-

as monthly maintenance. Normally, the Revision Court will not interfere

with the judgment of the Courts below. This Court also conscious about the

fact that Revisional Court cannot sit in the arm chair of the appellate court

and re-appreciate the entire evidence as the appellate court and give

independent finding unless appreciation of evidence by both the Courts

below are perverse or findings of both the Courts below are erroneous. On a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.736 of 2021

perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate, prima facie finds that there

was domestic violence caused by the petitioners herein against the

respondent. The Appellate Court also re-appreciated the entire evidence

finds that there was a domestic violence caused against the respondent

herein by the petitioners and ordered monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-.

6. Since the petitioners are not appeared to substantiate their claim

that the order of both the Courts below are perverse, this Court on perusal of

the records finds that there is no perversity or irregularity or illegality in the

order passed by both the Courts below. There is no merit in the revision and

the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case

is dismissed.

28.11.2022

mfa Index:yes/No Internet:yes/No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.736 of 2021

To

1. The II Additional Sessions Judge, II Additional City Court, Chennai

2.The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, XVIII M.M.Court at Chennai, Saidapet, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.736 of 2021

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

mfa

Crl.R.C.No.736 of 2021

28.11.2022

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