Madras High Court

Govindharassou vs Kannagi on 11 August, 2023

                                                                                   Crl.RC.No.871 of 2019



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED : 11.08.2023

                                                      CORAM:

                      The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

                                               Crl.RC.No.871 of 2018
                                        and Crl.M.P.Nos.9942 & 9943 of 2018


                   Govindharassou                                            ...Petitioner


                                                        -Vs-

                   Kannagi                                                   ...Respondent


                   Prayer:- Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
                   Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.A.No.22 of 2017 on the file of the Court
                   of II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry dated 28.04.2018 confirming
                   the order of         the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Puducherry in
                   Crl.MP.No.42 of 2017 in DVC.No.13 of 2016 dated 05.06.2017 awarding
                   a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the rental house and set aside the same.


                                    For Petitioner   : Mr.M.Devaraj
                                    For Respondent   : Not ready in notice



                                                      ORDER

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

Crl.RC.No.871 of 2019

The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that this

Criminal Revision case has been filed against the judgment passed by the

learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Crl.A.No.22 of 2017

dated 28.04.2018.

2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision

Petitioner that the Petitioner is the Husband of the Respondent. The

marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent herein was solemnized

on 28.06.1985 in Muthirapalayam, Puducherry. Subsequently, they

moved to Ahmedabad and settled there. Out of wedlock, two children

were born to them.

3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision

Petitioner that the Petitioner was driven out from Ahmedabad by the in-

laws of the Petitioner. Therefore he came back to Puducherry.

Subsequently, the Respondent came to Puducherry and stayed along with

children in a rental house. She had given a complaint against the Revision

Petitioner to the Hon'ble Lt Governor of Puducherry. The Lt Governor had

forwarded the complaint given by the Respondent to the Puducherry

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

Crl.RC.No.871 of 2019

Women's Commission. Subsequently, they had referred her to the Legal

Service Authority. The Domestic Violence case No.13 of 2016 was filed

before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4, Puducherry. During the

pendency of the Domestic Violence case, the Respondent had filed

Crl.M.P.No.42 of 2017, in which, the interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/-

was ordered. Aggrieved by the same, the Husband as Respondent in

Crl.MP.No.42 of 2017 and the Respondent in Domestic Violence case

No.13 of 2016 had filed Crl.A.No.22 of 2017 before the learned II

Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry. The learned Trial Judge dismissed

the appeal confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate

No.4, Puducherry, against which, the present Criminal Revision Case is

filed.

4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision

Petitioner that the Domestic Violence Case No.13 of 2016 itself is not

maintainable as the parties resided as husband and wife only in

Ahmedabad. The Domestic Violence case was enquired by the Protection

Officer. The Protection Officer in Puducherry cannot go to Ahmedabad

and obtain details. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Judicial

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

Crl.RC.No.871 of 2019

Magistrate No.4, Puducherry is to be set aside, as it is not at all

maintainable. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4,

Puducherry is perverse.

5. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the

attention of this Court to the observation of the II Additional Sessions

Judge, Puducherry in the judgment in Crl.A.No.22 of 2017 particularly in

para – 9 of the judgment, stated as follows:

“9. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties as husband and wife. The appellant claims that divorce has been obtained, but no documents filed to substantiate his claim. A perusal of records reveals that the petitioner who is wife of the respondent filed an application seeking interim maintenance in Cr.M.P.No.42 of 2017 in D.V.C. No.13/2016 and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV after perusing the material records ordered payment of Rs.5000/- by the respondent towards the rent for the residence of the petitioner (wife) by way of order dated 05.06.2017 and also directed the respondent herein to pay the maintenance on the 5th of every month. ...

6. On perusal of the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions

Judge, Puducherry it is found that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4,

Puducherry had arrived at a conclusion after service of notice on the

respondent in Domestic Violence Act, the husband as respondent, had not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.RC.No.871 of 2019

filed counter. Even though, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.4,

Puducherry has granted sufficient opportunity to the Respondent/Husband

to engage a counsel to file his objections. For the reasons, best known to

the respondent, he had remained silent and he had not taken any steps to

file his objections. With regard to the capacity of the respondent to pay the

maintenance amount is concerned, the learned II Additional Sessions

Judge, Puducherry has observed in his order as follows:

“9..... On perusal of records it is evident, that the respondent appeared before the lower Court on 02.02.2017 after service of notice. From 02.02.2017 to 05.05.2017, the lower court has granted sufficient opportunity for the respondent to engage a counsel and to file his objections, but for the reasons best known to the respondent, he has remaind silent and not taken steps to file his objections. With regard to the capacity of the respondent to pay the maintenance amount is concerned the appellant has not stated that he is not having any means. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that after deduction the appellant is getting only meager amount and he is not in a position to pay the maintenance amount as ordered and therefore prayed for allowing this appeal. It is contended on the side of the petitioner that the respondent is having means and drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and also collecting rent of about Rs.20,000/- and therefore the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant / respondent as not in a capacity to make the payment has no force.

Considering the above said aspects, there is no

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

Crl.RC.No.871 of 2019

reason to interfere with the well considered findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Puducherry and therefore the appellant / respondent is not entitled to the relief as prayed for and this point is answered accordingly”.

7. In the light of the observation made by the learned II Additional

Sessions Judge, Puducherry, this Revision has to fail. The petitioner has

not agitated his right in the Cr.MP.No.42 of 2017 before the learned

Judicial Magistrate No.4, Puducherry. In the light of the specific

observation made by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry,

this Court if of the view that it is a well reasoned order and the same does

not warrant any interference by this Court under the provisions of Revision.

Hence, the Revision Petitioner is directed to agitate his right in the main

case, in DVC. No.13 of 2016.

8. With the above observation, this Criminal Revision case is

dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

11.08.2023 drl Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order