G.Dillibabu vs Indrani
2023 Latest Caselaw 4522 Mad

                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 20.04.2023

                                                       CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

                                               Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

                     1. G.Dillibabu
                     2. G.Bhavani
                     3. G.Gangadharan                                            ... Petitioners

                                                            Vs.

                     Indrani                                                     ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w
                     401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the judgment rendered
                     in Crl.A.No.502 of 2018 dated 20.11.2019 and Crl.M.P.No.14617 of
                     2019 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at
                     Chennai, confirming the judgment passed in D.V.C.No.46 of 2017 (Old
                     No. M.C.10 of 2014) dated 20.04.2018 on the file of the learned XVI
                     Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and set aside the same
                     allowing the Criminal Revision.


                                          For Petitioners     : Mr.L.Ravichandran
                                          For Respondent      : No appearance




                     Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

                                                         ORDER

This Criminal Revision is filed by the husband, mother-in-

law and father-in-law of the complainant viz., Indrani, who has initiated

the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act (herein after referred to

as “the D.V. Act”, alleging that her marriage with one Dillibabu was

solemnized on 26.08.2013 at Valluvar Vasuki Thirumana Mandapam,

Avadi. At the time of marriage, the respondent's family gave one Royal

Enfield Bullet Motor Cycle and gold jewels of 21 sovereign, besides all

the household articles. The marriage expenses was met out by her bother.

2. But the marital relationship sustained hardly few days and

they have separated permanently and she had driven out from the

matrimonial home and got separated on 29.12.2013. This lead to lodging

of complaint before the All Women Police Station, Avadi on 22.03.2014.

In the presence of Police, the household articles and the seethana

properties given to her husband including the two wheeler were returned

except 21 sovereign of gold ornaments. Hence for return of jewels

weighing 21 sovereign and for compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

loss of earnings besides a lakh of rupees for other seethana articles,

petition under Section 10(e) of the D.V. Act was preferred.

3. The petition was contested by the revision petitioners herein

that after the marriage there was cordial relationship only for one month

and thereafter the complainant had suspicious about the conduct of the

first petitioner viz., her husband and started picking quarrel and deserted

him. In this regard, when the complaint was given before the All Women

Police Station, Avadi, she took back all the seethana articles and gave

letter that she will work out her remedy before the Court of law.

Therefore, the complaint under the D.V. Act is not maintainable.

4. Before the trial Court, the parties let in evidence. The list of

articles given at the time of marriage and other documents pertaining to

the marriage expenses, in the light of the complaint made before the

Protection Officer, were considered. Thereafter, the learned XVI

Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, disposed the petition

by passing the following order :-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

“21. In the light of the discussion made above and on the strength of the decisions arrived at the points raised, this Court orders as follows:-

(1) The first respondent, his men, agents, representatives and relatives are hereby restrained by way of protection order from causing any kind of Domestic Violence to the petitioner.

(2) The respondents are directed to return the 21 sovereigns of jewels as described in the schedule below or pay the value of the jewels to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of order.

(3) The first respondent is directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner under Section 22 of the D.V. Act directly or through her bank account within 2 months from the date of order.”

5. On an appeal before the learned Principal Session Judge,

Chennai, in Crl.A.No.502 of 2018, the evidence was re-appreciated and

found no error in the order passed by the trial Court in D.V.C.No.46 of

2017. Hence, the appeal was dismissed along with the Miscellaneous

Petition filed under Section 391 of Cr.P.C., to adduce further evidence to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

establish that Ex.P.3, the letter is a fabricated document and the jewel

weighing 21 sovereigns was taken back by the complainant, while she

deserted the first petitioner. The appellate Court on considering the

evidence has found that no merits in the appeal, since the Protection

Officer's report and the statement made by the witnesses to the Police

would go to show that there was dispute over return of jewels and in the

proof affidavit filed by the first petitioner, the articles returned to the

complainant are listed and acknowledged in a document dated

03.04.2014, which annexed along with Ex.P.3.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the Courts below failed to consider that the document relied

upon by the complainant are all photo copies and originals not been

compared to accept its genuine, particularly the list of Seethana

properties allegedly to have prepared on the date of marriage. In fact it

does not contain the list of jewels weighing 21 sovereigns and the same

was inserted and produced before the Courts below. But the Courts

below relying upon it, since it is form part of the proof affidavit. Without

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

marking the document, the Courts below ought not to have appreciated

the content of it.

7. Further submits that while the first petitioner is ready to take

the complainant into the marital home, she is not willing to join him. The

first petitioner preferred petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

Though it was dismissed, the complainant on her part neither joined him

nor sought for any divorce, which proves that she is on her own wish

without any intention to join him. Therefore, the compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the trial Court is not justifiable. Further the

learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the marriage photos

relied upon by the Courts below to hold that 21 sovereigns of jewels

were given at the time of marriage is without any proof or prudence.

8. Pending the revision, the second petitioner viz., mother-in-

law died. The learned counsel for the petitioners also filed a memo dated

10.02.2021 before this Court to that effect and the same is recorded.

Though notice was served on the respondent and learned counsel entered

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

appearance on behalf of her, there is no representation on the

respondent/complainant. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners. The original records were called for and the same were

perused.

9. It is true that the document viz., list of articles allegedly to

have prepared on the date of marriage not been marked as an exhibit.

However, it is found on the records. Regarding 21 sovereigns of jewels,

there is no indication that the jewels were given at the time of marriage.

The defence taken by the husband is that those jewels were taken away

by the complainant when she deserted the first petitioner.

10. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners relied upon the letter given by the complainant before the All

Women Police Station, Avadi, indicating that she has taken back all the

articles which were given during the time of marriage and she is not

interested in pursuing the complaint against his husband and in-law and

she is ready to work out her remedy before the Court of law. On reading

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

of the said letter reveals that it is not an unconditional withdrawal of

complaint but only with guider that she decided to work out her remedy

through legal form and not through Police.

11. As far as 21 sovereigns of jewels, which is the point for

consideration, the complainant had produced documents that at the time

of marriage she was given 21 sovereigns of jewels, besides Royal Enfield

Bullet. Pending complaint, the Royal Enfield Bullet appears to have been

returned. Accepting the evidence of complainant and the photographs

taken during the marriage, the Courts below had held that 21 sovereigns

of jewels still retained by the petitioners and it should be returned back.

12. On perusing the acknowledge letter dated 03.04.2014, which

form part of Ex.P.3, this Court finds that the complainant taken back a

gold chain weighing 5 sovereigns and one set of bangle and one set of

anklet. Now it is the case that 21 sovereigns of jewels which is found in

the list prepared on 26.08.2013 not yet returned. This Court finds that the

dollar chain weighing 5 sovereigns, ear ring 2 grams and silver anklet are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

all find place as gold ornaments given during the time of marriage, apart

from necklace, bangles, and chain with doller. Before the All Women

Police Station in the course of enquiry on 03.04.2014, chain, ring, anklet

and ear ring alone were returned and not other jewels which comes to

around 21 sovereigns.

13. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners

would submit that entire details found below the Royal Enfield bullet

viz., one two wheeler are inserted and fabricated details. However, on

perusing the list, this Court finds that Subramani, Palani, Kasthuri and

Kavitha all signed below the list of jewels. Other document now

produced before this Court to compare it, finds covered in the same place

with white paper above the signature of the said persons, so the details of

the jewels not found. Whether the documents now relied by the counsel

for petitioners are genuine or the documents which are already been in

the records on the file of the Court are genuine is not known. Both being

the photo copies and not marked as document before the trial Court, this

Court go by the observation made by the trial Court that the photograph

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

evidence as well as the complainant evidence indicates that to prove that

the jewels are not returned to the complainant and retained by the

accused.

14. Hence, this Court while confirming the order of the trial

Court to the extent of returning the 21 sovereigns of jewels, modifying

the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant, since

there is elements of contribution in the desertion and the parties have to

work out their remedy before the Family Court for appropriate remedy

and it is not the case for compensation to be awarded under the D.V. Act.

15. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition stands partly

allowed.

20.04.2023 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order

rts

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

To

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2. The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J

rts

Crl.R.C.No.426 of 2020

20.04.2023

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