Madras High Court
A.Prakash vs V.Mallieswari @ Magudeswari on 12 October, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRL.R.C.No.507 of 2018
and Crl.M.P.No.6117 of 2018
1.A.Prakash
2.Arumugam
3.Mani ... Petitioners
Vs.
V.Mallieswari @ Magudeswari ... Respondent
Prayer: The Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of
Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment passed the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.A.No.41 of 2015 dated 24.10.2017 by
confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore, in
D.V.A.C.No.43 of 2012 dated 18.12.2014.
For Petitioners : Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the judgment passed the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in C.A.No.41 of 2015
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2018
dated 24.10.2017 by confirming the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate
No.6, Coimbatore, in D.V.A.C.No.43 of 2012 dated 18.12.2014.
2. This Revision is directed as against the judgment passed by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.41 of 2015
dated 24.10.2017 thereby partly allowing the order passed by the Judicial
Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore, in D.V.A.C.No.43 of 2012 dated 18.12.2014.
3. The complaint is lodged by the respondent, under the Domestic
Violence Act, alleging that the golden jewels weighing 12 sovereigns that were
given to her at the time of her marriage was kept in the custody of the
petitioners herein and she was made to sleep outside the house during her
menstrual periods, during the said period, she was not even given blankets and
mat and she was forced to take bath in the terrace of the house in evening
times, when her parents and relatives questioned the appellants, they promised
to construct a bathroom in the terrace and wanted her to go to her cousin's
house for taking bath till such time. Thereafter, alleging that during the month
of June 2011, the first petitioner, who is being husband of the respondent
herein harassed her to bring dowry from her parents for constructing a house
rather than bathroom. Therefore, on the said demand, during the month of July
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2018
2011, the uncle of the respondent namely Selvaraj paid Rs.1,10,000/-. The
petitioners also insulted the respondent that she is not able to bear a child even
though, after medical checkup, doctors told that the first petitioner is unable to
bear a child. Again on 05.11.2011, when the respondent wanted to go to her
parent's house to see her parents, were sick, the petitioners refused to allow her
to visit her parents.
4. Thereafter, admittedly, the petitioners harassed her and as such she
was dropped out of her matrimonial house and finally she lodged a complaint
before the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thudiyalur.
5. On the side of the respondent, PW1 and PW2 were examined and
Exs.P1 to P5 were marked and on the side of the petitioners RW1 was
examined and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.
6. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence produced before the
trial, the trial Court allowed the complaint and directed the petitioners to return
the jewels which were presented during their marriage. Further, the petitioners
were directed to return the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- which was received as
dowry for construction of house within one month and they were also directed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2018
to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent herein.
That apart, the petitioners were directed to pay a compensation of
Rs.2,50,000/- for the domestic violence suffered by the respondent.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the
Appellate Court partly allowed the same thereby expect the compensation
payable by the petitioners, other directions were set aside.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the
trial Court concluded that no domestic violence was meted out by the
petitioners, the respondent is not at all entitled for compensation. In fact, the
other directions issued by the trial Court were rightly set aside. Though the
petitioners denied the fact that the respondent, during her menstrual period, she
was directed to stay outside. He would further submit that both the Courts
below wrongly concluded that the petitioners have admitted the said fact. He
would further submit that in fact the first petitioner is a daily wager and he is
only earning Rs.150/- per day. Therefore, the petitioners could not able to pay
the compensation as awarded by the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2018
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the
respondent was subjected to domestic violence at the hands of the petitioners
herein and it was duly established by the respondent before the trial Court. The
Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal on the ground that already a divorce
was granted on the ground of cruelty. He further contended that the respondent
refused to live with the first petitioner and as such, the trial Court concluded
that the respondent is not entitled for monthly maintenance. In so far as, the
direction about returning of Rs.1,10,000/- is concerned, the respondent was not
examined before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court concluded that the
petitioners are not liable to pay any amount to the respondent herein.
Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly awarded compensation payable by the
petitioner for the domestic violence suffered by the respondent herein at the
hands of the petitioners.
10. Heard, Mr.E.K.Kumaresan, the learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the
entire materials available on record.
11. It is seen that the first petitioner, who is none other than the husband
of the respondent, got married and during their marriage some jewels were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2018
presented to her by her parents. Further, the respondent was subjected to
domestic violence at the hands of the petitioners herein while she was in her
matrimonial home. There are several allegations made as against the
petitioners. The respondent was examined as PW1 before the trial Court, she
categorically deposed that she suffered under domestic violence as against the
petitioners. One of the most affected cruelty was that during menstrual periods
she was not allowed to take bath inside the house, she was directed to take
bath in an open terrace of the house, which was inhuman and violation of
human rights. It is unfortunate to state that, in a new era, a woman, suffered
due to natural physiological behavior of her body, the cruelty committed by the
petitioners which is highly condemnable.
12. The petitioners, being the family members, ought to have provided
adequate comfort to the respondent in the form of physical and moral support
during menstrual period. Instead of providing comfort to the respondent, the
petitioners tortured the respondent during her menstrual period and directed
her to take bath in an open terrace. Therefore, the Court below rightly awarded
compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent herein. Hence, this Court
finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2018
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision case stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
12.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non Speaking order
ata
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.6,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ata
Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2018
12.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
