Madras High Court

Dhanakotty vs Panchavarnam on 14 November, 2025

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                  Order reserved on : 05.11.2025                    Order pronounced on : 14.11.2025


                                                                     CORAM
                                        THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

                                                           CRP.No.4124 of 2024

                     Dhanakotty                                                                  ... Petitioner

                                                                          Vs.

                     1.Panchavarnam
                     2.Siansia                                                                   ... Respondents

                     Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
                     India, to set aside the order dated 03.11.2020 made in D.V.C.No.20 of 2020,
                     passed by the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Leval), Tiruvannamalai,
                     confirmed by the judgment dated 22.03.2024 in Crl.A.No.1 of 2021 passed by
                     the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai.

                                                For Petitioners           : Mr.B.Jawahar

                                                For Respondents : Mr.P.Rajamani


                                                                      ORDER

The husband, aggrieved by the order passed in the Domestic Violence

proceedings on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai, in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:15 pm ) D.V.C.No.2 of 2020 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the

Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvannamalai, is the revision petitioner.

2.I have heard Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr.P.Rajamani, learned counsel for the respondents viz., wife and daughter.

3.Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

though several grounds have been raised in the memorandum of grounds of

revision, the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner is

willing to accept the order, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/- and

clear the entire arrears, provided reasonable time is granted and he limits his

arguments only in respect of the restraint regarding enjoyment of the separate

properties standing in the name of the petitioner.

4.Mr.B.Jawahar, learned counsel for the petitioner would further

contend that even pending the domestic violence proceedings, the petitioner

has purchased a property of an extent of 4 acres and 62 cents in the name of

the daughter and further, he has also settled an extent of 25 cents in favour of

the daughter and therefore, the petitioner has adequately protected the interest

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:15 pm ) of the respondents and without considering the same, the Courts below have

proceeded to restrain the petitioner from encumbering or alienating the

properties belonging to him. He would further contend that such prohibitory

orders cannot be passed by the Courts under the provisions of the Domestic

Violence Act and further, he would state that when the petitioner, who is aged

about 70 + years is finding it difficult to even maintain himself and when he

has already given adequate immovable properties to his daughter, he should

not be additionally prevented from enjoying his own properties, which is only

source of his livelihood. He would therefore prays for suitable orders being

passed in the revision.

5.Per contra, Mr.P.Rajamani, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would submit that the petitioner has harassed the first respondent

even since the date of marriage in 1987 and the petitioner has also had an

illicit affair with one Kamatchi for several years and has allowed the

respondents to starve on several occasions, without giving them even basic

necessities of food and shelter, leave alone education to the daughter. He

would also contend that the respondents are not even able to meet the medical

expenses and despite the order granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/-,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:15 pm ) till date, no amount has been paid and more than Rs.17,00,000/- is due and

payable. The learned counsel for the respondents would further state that the

petitioner got 27 acres of lands, from and out of his ancestral property and he

has already disposed of approximately 14 acres and if he is permitted to

encumber the remaining properties as well, then the respondents will not be in

a position to get any protection which would defeat the very order passed by

the Courts below concurrently. The learned counsel for the respondents would

further contend that even the settlement deed executed in respect of 25 cents is

not an absolute deed of settlement and the petitioner has retained life interest.

He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

6.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel on either side.

7.As regards, the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/-, I find

that the Additional Mahila Judge, Thiruvannamalai, has rightly taken into

account the relevant factors, the age of the parties and also the amounts that

would be necessary to enable the respondents to live comfortably and

proceeded to award Rs.9,000/- per month. The learned Principal Sessions

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:15 pm ) Judge, Thiruvannamalai, has also confirmed the said findings and has found

that the order of the learned Additional Mahila Judge, does not require any

interference in this regard.

8.Insofar as the restraint or alienation of the separate properties of the

petitioner, I am unable to sustain the findings of the Courts below. Admittedly,

the petitioner has settled a vast extent of 4 acres 62 cents in favour of his

daughter, pending the proceedings before the Additional Mahila Court and

settled another extent of 25 cents in favour of the daughter, pending the

Domestic Violence proceedings. However, as rightly contended by the learned

counsel for the respondents, the settlement is not an absolute deed of transfer

of interest and the petitioner has retained a life interest and the settlee viz., his

daughter would get benefit only after the demise of the petitioner. Therefore, it

is not fair on the part of petitioner to contend that he has also settled an extent

of 25 cents of valuable immovable property, which is a house site in favour of

his daughter.

9.Insofar the purchase of 4 acres 60 cents in favour of the daughter, the

same is admitted even by the respondents and the purchase has been effected

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:15 pm ) by way of sale deed dated 25.04.2013, which has been marked as Ex.R10

during trial. The petitioner has also paid a further sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the

Electricity Department in Ex.R7 in the name of the 2nd respondent, even

though the 2nd respondent was a major, at that point of time. Therefore it

cannot be stated that the petitioner has totally neglected the respondents

altogether.

10.No doubt, the petitioner has not paid any amount towards

maintenance, despite the order of the Additional Mahila Court. However, he

has challenged the order before the Principal Sessions Court,

Thiruvannamalai, and thereafter, before this Court. Therefore, the non-

compliance cannot be said to be willful or wanton. In any event, considering

the fact that the petitioner is now willing to clear the entire arrears of

maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/- and he seeks only reasonable time, I see

no reason why the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/- should not

be confirmed. Therefore, the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs.9,000/- to

the respondents is confirmed and the petitioner shall clear the entire arrears of

maintenance payable by him, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:15 pm )

11.Insofar as the order restraining the petitioner from enjoying his

properties, admittedly, there is no shared household and the parties viz., the

petitioner and the 1st respondent are living separately for more than a decade.

The said position is not in dispute. Further, when the petitioner has given

substantial properties to the daughter, with whom the wife of the petitioner, 1 st

respondent lives, I do not see how the Courts were justified in passing an order

restraining the petitioner from dealing with any of his properties. The said

order is beyond the scope of powers conferred under the provisions of the

Domestic Violence Act and therefore, the said prohibitory order is clearly

unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.

12.At the same time, the petitioner, though claims that he has settled his

valuable property of 25 cents which is the house property on the daughter,

admittedly, it is not an absolute settlement deed. Therefore, in order to confer

absolute right and title in favour of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner shall

execute and register necessary document, relinquishing his life interest in

favour of the settlee viz., the 2nd respondent, his daughter. The said exercise

shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:15 pm ) copy of the order.

13.With the above modifications and directions, the Civil Revision

Petition is partly allowed in the manner following:-

(i) Clause 5 of the order dated 03.11.2020 in D.V.C.No.20 of 2020 on

the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Tiruvannamalai,

and confirmed by the judgment dated 22.03.2024 in Crl.A.No.1 of 2021 on the

file of the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai, is confirmed.

(ii) Clause 2 of the order dated 03.11.2020 in D.V.C.No.20 of 2020 on

the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Tiruvannamalai,

and confirmed by the judgment dated 22.03.2024 in Crl.A.No.1 of 2021 dated

22.03.2024, is set aside.

(iii) The petitioner shall pay the entire arrears of maintenance at the rate

of Rs.9,000/- per month payable from 15.09.2009 till 31.10.2025, within a

period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

(iv) The petitioner shall continue to pay the amount of Rs.9,000/- to the

respondents in future, without any default, on or before the 10 th of every

succeeding month.

(v) The petitioner shall withdraw or surrender his life interest reserved

in the settlement deed executed by him in favour of his daughter, the 2 nd

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:15 pm ) respondent, in and by the document dated 25.03.2010, by executing and

registering the necessary document, within a period of four weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(vi) There shall be no order as to costs.