Madras High Court
Geetha vs Jeyabalan on 31 March, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.361 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.361 of 2018
Geetha ... Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.Jeyabalan
2.Johnson Paulraj
3.Jabakaniappa ... Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records
pertaining to the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi in M.C.No.19 of 2013, dated
14.10.2016 by partly allowing the petition filed by the petitioner
herein, which has been subsequently, confirmed by the learned II
Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi in C.A.No.5 of
2017, dated 01.02.2018 and by setting aside the order rejecting the
relief for return of jewels.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Samuel Gunasingh
For Respondents : Mr.N.Subramani
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.R.C(MD)No.361 of 2018
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the order passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi in M.C.No.19
of 2013, dated 14.10.2016 by partly allowing the petition filed by
the petitioner herein, which has been subsequently, confirmed by
the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi in
C.A.No.5 of 2017, dated 01.02.2018.
2.The petitioner is a daughter of the respondents 1 and 3
herein and sister of the second respondent. She lodged a complaint
under the Domestic Violence Act as against the respondents for
permitting the respondents to return the jewels belong to the
petitioner, restraining the respondents from interfering the life of
the petitioner and sought for compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,00,000/-.
3.The case of the petitioner is that even before her marriage,
she was serving as Chief Warden in Thakkalai Women Prison till her
marriage, she herself fulfilled maximum expenses without the help
of the respondents. Further, the respondents had spent all the
salaries and income of the petitioner till her marriage, namely, on
20.01.2012. In fact the marriage expenses was met out from her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.361 of 2018
income. The petitioner was on leave before joining duty, due to
abortion of pregnancy for the period of 45 days. During that period,
she had left her jewels and articles with the respondents. They also
demanded the ATM card of the petitioner and they had withdrawn
huge sum for their personal expenses.
4.In order to prove her case, the petitioner had examined as
P.W.1 and P.W.2 and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13.
On the side of the respondents, they had examined R.W.1 and R.W.
2 and no documents were marked.
5.A perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court
partly allowed the petition and protection order was granted in
favour of the petitioner from the hands of the respondents from
committing violence to her and also directed the respondents 1 and
2 to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- each to the petitioner.
However, the trial Court did not order any return of jewels.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal
before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court,
Thoothukudi in C.A.No.5 of 2017 and the appeal was also dismissed
on 01.02.2018 and confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court.
Hence, the present revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.361 of 2018
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
after her marriage, she got pregnant. Unfortunately, her pregnancy
got terminated and at that juncture, she was stayed with the
respondents. She also got employment even before her marriage,
namely, in the year 2002. Till her marriage, her expenditure was
met out by herself and she never had been taken by the
respondents during the leave period and she had kept her jewels
with the respondents. They failed to return back the jewels and also
withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- through her ATM Card. However,
the Courts below ordered only compensation and granted the
protection order and rejected the claim of return of jewels.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would
submit that the respondents are none other than the own father,
mother and brother of the petitioner herein. They only arranged
marriage with her husband and the entire expense was incurred by
them during the marriage. The husband of the petitioner is an
Advocate and as such, a false and frivolous complaint was lodged
under the Domestic Violence Act. There was absolutely no
harassment or extraction of any money from the petitioner herein.
He would further submit that the entire amount, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.361 of 2018
allegedly withdrawn by the respondents was utilized only for her
medical expenditure. Admittedly, her pregnancy got terminated and
she stayed in the house of the respondents, due to her medical
emergency, she used to give the ATM card to the first respondent
herein to withdraw money for her medical expenditure. Therefore,
no single paisa was utilized by the respondents and the Courts
below rightly dismissed the claim for returning of jewels.
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
9.The petitioner lodged the complaint under the Domestic
Violence Act as against her parents and brother. The petitioner got
married with one Advocate and only on his instigation, the said
complaint was lodged. The petitioner has failed to prove that she
handed over the jewels to the respondents. Admittedly, when she
was staying with the respondents, due to termination of her
pregnancy, there was medical expenses. However, the first
respondent admitted that the ATM card was handed over to him and
he had withdrawn money to the tune of Rs.85,000/-. Therefore, the
Courts below ordered compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- each
payable by the respondents. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.361 of 2018
or illegality in the order passed by the Courts below since the
petitioner is not entitled for the relief to return of her jewels by the
respondents. Hence, this Revision Petition is dismissed.
31.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
sji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.361 of 2018
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi.
2.The II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.361 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
sji
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.361 of 2018
31.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
