Madras High Court
S.Kalpana vs D.Selvakumar on 14 July, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.R.P.(MD)No.856 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.07.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P.[PD].(MD)No.856 of 2024
S.Kalpana ...Petitioner
Vs.
1.D.Selvakumar
2.Vijayalakshmi
3.D.Mahesh
4.Anuradha ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, praying to set aside the judgment dated 05.09.2022 in C.A.No.143 of
2019, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur
confirming the judgment dated 22.08.2019 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2015, on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court), Thanjavur and allow the
Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.AN.Ramanathan
For Respondents : No appearance
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 05:04:10 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)No.856 of 2024
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated
05.09.2022 in C.A.No.143 of 2019, on the file of the II Additional District and
Sessions Court, Thanjavur confirming the judgment dated 22.08.2019 in
D.V.C.No.1 of 2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court),
Thanjavur and allow the Civil Revision Petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the first respondent
are the husband and wife. The marriage between the petitioner and the first
respondent was solemnized on 02.11.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At
the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner have given 40 sovereigns of
gold jewels, Rs.70,000/- for purchasing the two-wheeler and they have also
given Sridhana articles worth about Rs.2,00,000/-. Due to the matrimonial
dispute arose between them, the petitioner has filed a petition in D.V.C.No.1 of
2015 claiming 40 sovereigns of gold jewels, Sridhana articles worth about
Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.70,000/- given to the first respondent for purchasing the
two-wheeler, claiming interim maintenance and for compensation. The trial
Court, after considering the materials placed before him and the evidences
rejected claims made by the petitioner, except for return of the two-wheeler,
which was purchased out of the money given by the petitioner's family, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 05:04:10 pm )
dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the petitioner
has filed C.A.No.143 of 2019 before the II Additional District and Sessions
Court, Thanjavur. The lower appellate Court also confirmed the order of the
trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the concurrent findings
of the Courts below, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner specifically pleaded in her Domestic Violence Petition that at the time
of marriage, her family members have given 40 sovereigns of gold jewels,
Sridhana articles worth about Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.70,000/- for purchasing the
two-wheeler, however, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that there is no
domestic violence made against the respondents and also arrived that no proof
was filed before the trial Court for purchasing of 40 sovereigns of gold jewels
and Sridhana articles and payment of Rs.70,000/- for purchasing the two-
wheeler. However, the trial Court has believed the words of the respondents
that they received Rs.70,000/- for purchasing the two-wheeler and that the
respondents are ready to return the two-wheeler to the petitioner. Such plea was
accepted by the trial Court, but the trial Court has not accepted the plea made by
the petitioner that the petitioner's family members have given 40 sovereigns of
gold jewels and Rs.2,00,000/- Sridhana articles since no proof was filed before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 05:04:10 pm )
the trial for purchasing the jewels and sridhana articles and the same was
affirmed by the lower appellate Court is not acceptable one and prays for
allowing the Civil Revision Petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Though notice
was served on the respondents and their names are also printed in the cause list,
they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.
5. It is seen from the records that except the averments made before the
trial Court, no documents or no bills were produced before the trial Court for
purchasing of 40 sovereigns of gold jewels and Sridhana articles and therefore,
the trial Court has refused to accept the plea raised by the petitioner and the
same was confirmed by the lower appeallate Court. In view of the absence of
any materials, the trial Court and the lower appeallate Court have rightly
dismissed the petition and the appeal. In such circumstances, I am of the
opinion that there is no error or irregularity or illegality in the impugned order
passed by the learned Judge, dismissing the application and appeal filed by the
petitioner. There is no infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The trial
Court is directed to ensure the return of the two-wheeler as agreed by the
respondent to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 05:04:10 pm )
receipt of a copy of this order. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an
appropriate petitioner before the trial Court for return of the two-wheeler.
6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
14.07.2025
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 05:04:10 pm )
To
1.The II Additional District and Sessions Court,
Thanjavur.
2.The Judicial Magistrate (Fast Track Court),
Thanjavur.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 05:04:10 pm )
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
am
14.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 05:04:10 pm )
