Madras High Court
Prabu @ Prabhakaran ... Revision vs A.Kavitha on 31 March, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 31.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.3055 of 2018
Prabu @ Prabhakaran ... Revision Petitioner/
Appellant
Vs.
A.Kavitha ... Respondent/
Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.A.No.7 of
2016, dated 17.01.2018 on the file of the Additional District Court
(Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, against the order passed in
M.C.No.6 of 2014, dated 20.01.2016 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam and set aside the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Gopalan
For Respondent : Mr.G.Karnan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the order passed
in C.A.No.7 of 2016, dated 17.01.2018 on the file of the Additional
District Court (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, against the order
passed in M.C.No.6 of 2014, dated 20.01.2016 on the file of the
Judicial Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent
filed a petition under the Domestic Violence Act as against the
petitioner and his aged parents before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Kumbakonam and the same was numbered as M.C.No.6
of 2014. The trial Court, ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as
maintenance amount to the respondent and a sum of Rs.5,000/-
each to the children. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
preferred an appeal in C.A.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the Additional
District Court (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam.
3.The case of the respondent is that in the year 1996,
she got married with the petitioner herein. During the marriage, her
parents had presented 75 sovereigns of gold jewels to the
respondent, 12-1/2 sovereigns of gold jewels to the petitioner,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
household articles worth about Rs.2,00,000/- and also borne out
the entire marriage expenditure by the respondent's family. In fact,
after verification of the entire jewels, the parents of the petitioner
were allowed to have the first night. After five months, they had set
up a separate house. The petitioner used to scold her with filthy
language and also compelled her to have a sexual relationship as
per pornography. He always suspected her fidelity and used to
beaten her. He also compelled her to give divorce. Furthermore, he
threatened and compelled her to see pornography videos and had
sexual intercourse like an animal. He never allowed the respondent
to see her relatives and visit her parents' house. In the year 2008,
he also tortured her and demanded huge dowry from the parents of
the respondent and also received a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- as
dowry. Therefore, she lodged a complaint under the Domestic
Violence Act as against the petitioner and his parents and the same
has been taken on file in M.C.No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam.
4.In order to prove the same, the respondent had
examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 and on the
side of the petitioner, no one was examined and marked Exs.R.1 to
R.10.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court partly allowed M.C.No.6 of 2014 and ordered
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the respondent and
ordered a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to her two children. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.7 of 2016 on
the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court),
Kumbakonam and the same was also dismissed, confirming the
order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the respondent is a millionaire, and she had enough
properties to maintain herself. The petitioner has no grievance to
pay maintenance to the respondent and his children. The
respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner and is living
separately. Therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. There
is absolutely no allegation as against the petitioner. In fact, she filed
divorce petition and the same was dismissed for default in
I.D.O.P.No.27 of 2014 on the file of the Principal District Court,
Thanjavur. She also lodged a complaint for the offence punishable
under Sections 498-A, 406 and 294(b) of I.P.C and the same has
been taken cognizance in C.C.No.538 of 2014 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
Additional Mahila Court, Madurai and ended in acquittal by
Judgment, dated 04.01.2023. No allegation is proved as against the
petitioner and as such, the respondent is not entitled for any
maintenance.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
further submitted that the petitioner is illiterate and he has no such
income as alleged by the respondent. He is dependent of his
parents and as such, he cannot able to pay any maintenance as
awarded by the Courts below. He is earning only a sum of Rs.300/-
to Rs.700/- per day and he has no other income from any business
as alleged by the respondent.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
further submit that the petitioner has seen some pornography
photographs in the cell phone of the respondent which was sent by
her sister's husband. When it was questioned by him, she
immediately deserted the petitioner and went to her parents house.
The only reason for her separation is that the petitioner questioned
the photograph found in her cell phone. Therefore, he prayed for
setting aside the order passed by the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
9.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would submit that the petitioner is a cruel man, and he
committed a very serious and heinous offence as against the
respondent by compelling her to have sexual intercourse as per
pornography. He also compelled her to watch pornography movies
and videos and compelled her to have sexual intercourse in front of
their children. He also demanded huge dowry and he tortured to the
core. Therefore, she was driven out from the matrimonial home
along with two children. In fact, the first girl child now attained
majority and she is physically handicapped and her son is doing +2
and as such, he could not able to maintain themselves since she has
no other source of income. Once upon a time, her parents were
healthy persons, and now they lost everything, and they have no
income to support the respondent and her children. Even after the
order passed by the Courts below, the petitioner failed to pay any
monthly maintenance so far, except for some deposit of a very
meagre amount. The petitioner is being the father of two children,
he never had taken any steps to see his own children. He never
invested any money in their favour and he did not even spend single
paise in their favour. Therefore, the Courts below rightly ordered
maintenance and prayed for dismissal of the revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
11.On perusal of the complaint lodged by the
respondent under the Domestic Violence Act, all the allegations are
very serious in nature, and he committed cruelty to the respondent
herein by compelling her to have sexual intercourse as per the
pornography. It is also seen that when the respondent's sister's
husband had sent photographs of her two children some
advertisements also reflected and the same was touched by him,
and it had gone to some link. Therefore, no photograph was sent by
anybody to the respondent.
12.That apart, the petitioner is a businessman and he is
doing Banana auction business and he used to procure Banana from
all the agriculturists and he is a wholesaler. He also had agricultural
property and he had huge income. Whereas, the respondent had no
source of income in order to maintain herself and to maintain her
two children. In fact, the petitioner has no objection to maintaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
his children and he is disputing the award of maintenance in favour
of the respondent alone. Though her parents were wealthy at the
time of their marriage, now they have no source of income and they
are not in a position to maintain the respondent and her children. In
fact, even assuming that her parents are wealthy, the petitioner is
being the husband and he is duty-bound to maintain his wife and
children. Though the petitioner was acquitted from the charge under
Sections 498-A, 406 and 294(b) of I.P.C it would not mean that the
petitioner did not commit any cruelty to the respondent. The trial
Court acquitted the petitioner and two others for the reason that the
prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt. Therefore,
only because of the cruelty committed by the petitioner, the
respondent was driven out from the matrimonial home along with
two children. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in
the order passed by the Court below and the revision is liable to be
dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
13.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
The respondent is at liberty to take appropriate steps to execute the
order of maintenance in the manner known to law. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
31.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ps
To
1.The Additional District Court
(Fast Track Court),
Kumbakonam.
2.The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Kumbakonam.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
ps
Order made in
Crl.R.C(MD)No.236 of 2018
31.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
