Madras High Court
C.Rathinam ... Revision vs Vetriselvi on 20 March, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.225 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 20.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.225 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.1931 of 2017
C.Rathinam ... Revision Petitioner/
Respondent/Respondent
Vs.
Vetriselvi ... Respondent/
Appellant/Petitioner
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to
the order dated 15.03.2016 made in Crl.A.No.66 of 2014 on the file
of the learned District Judge, Sivagangai and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kaliraj
For Respondent : Mr.T.Thirumurugan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.R.C(MD)No.225 of 2017
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the order, dated
15.03.2016 made in Crl.A.No.66 of 2014 on the file of the learned
District Judge, Sivagangai, thereby remanded the matter back for
fresh hearing in S.T.C.No.349 of 2014 on the file of the learned
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Thirupathur.
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused
the materials available on record.
3.The respondent is the daughter-in-law of the
petitioner. She married the son of the petitioner and gave birth to
two children. Unfortunately, her husband died. The respondent filed
an application before the District Prevention and Protection of
Domestic Violence Welfare Officer on 18.02.2008 and the same has
been taken on file in M.C.No.27 of 2008 on the file of the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur. She also filed an application for
monetary relief of return the widow pension of Rs.12,500/- which
was granted in favour of the respondent, to redeem the sridhana
jewels of 30 sovereigns and also half share of her husband in the
family property. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.225 of 2017
directed the petitioner to return the sridhana jewels of the
respondent within a period of two months and the rest of the reliefs
were dismissed. Against the said order, respondent filed an appeal
in Crl.A.No.21 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,
Sivagangai, and the trial Court, by order dated 30.08.2012, directed
the petitioner to redeem the sridhana jewels to the respondent
within a period of two months. While being so, the respondent
preferred a petition under Section 31 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in S.T.C.No.349 of 2013 before
the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirupattur. The
trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section
31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
and sentenced him to undergo one week simple imprisonment and
also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- as penalty, in default, shall undergo
two days Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the
respondent filed an appeal for enhancement of sentence in Crl.A.No.
66 of 2014 on the file of the learned District Judge, Sivagangai. The
Appellate Court set aside the order of sentence and remanded the
matter back to the trial Court for a fresh trial. Aggrieved by the
same, the present Revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.225 of 2017
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that now the petitioner is aged more than 71 years, and he
is bedridden and cannot even stand or walk without the help of
others.
5.On perusal of the records, it is seen that after
conviction, under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the petitioner had already undergone
one week Simple Imprisonment and also paid a sum of Rs.500/- as
the fine amount. The Appellate Court, without considering the same,
allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the trial Court
for fresh disposal. That apart, the petitioner had already settled the
property in favour of the respondent and grandchildren to an extent
of 3 acres 98 cents. When the husband of the respondent was alive,
he was suffering from H.I.V. Therefore, while both were together,
her husband mortgaged the jewel and the entire amount had been
spent for his treatment. Therefore, the petitioner is nothing to do
with the jewels. Considering the above facts, the Appellate Court
ought not to have remanded the matter back for fresh trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.225 of 2017
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and also considering the fact the petitioner is aged about 71 years,
the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.66 of 2014 on the file of the learned
District Judge, Sivagangai, dated 15.03.2016, is set aside and the
Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The District Court,
Sivagangai.
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Thirupathur.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.225 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.225 of 2017
20.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
