This revision arises against the order of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, passed in C.M.P.No.175 of 2016 in C.A.No.27 of 2016 on 06.02.2017.
2. Petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. They have two children. Differences arose between them. Respondent/wife initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner/husband and her in-laws in M.C.No.30 of 2013 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Erode. Pending such case, respondent/wife moved C.M.P.No.400 of 2014 seeking residential order. Initially, Court below has granted an interim order under orders dated 11.02.2014 and after completion of trial, allowed the petition under orders dated 10.02.2016 directing petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent towards maintenance, clothing, medical and educational expenses of the children. Aggrieved, petitioner/husband moved C.A.No.27 of 2016 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode. Pending appeal, petitioner/husband moved C.M.P.No.175 of 2016 to let in additional evidence i.e. to receive the xerox copy of sale deed executed by petitioner in favour of one Bargath Ali on 02.07.2015 and legal notice dated 31.08.2016 issued by Bargath Ali to petitioner/husband. Court below, under the impugned order, dismissed the petitioner. Hence, this revision.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
4. In dismissing the petition, Court below has found that under orders in C.M.P.No.400 of 2014 in M.C.No.30 of 2013 dated 11.02.2014, petitioner was directed not to disturb the possession of respondent/wife in the house at ATC Manjal Mandi, behind Rajajipuram, Kuppakadu, Erode Town and was also further directed not to cause any mental or physical harm to respondent/wife and her children. Court below has found that, in the circumstances, the contention of petitioner/husband that he borrowed money from various persons for his business purposes and owing to heavy loss, he sold his residence to one Barkath Ali for Rs.7,90,000/- on 02.07.2015 under sale deed dated 02.07.2015, was not sustainable. When there was an earlier order directing petitioner/husband not to disturb the possession of respondent/wife in the house and not to cause any mental or physical harm to respondent/wife and her children, it is not open to the petitioner to deal with the property as per his wish. On the above reasoning, Court below has held that the petition filed to receive the petition mentioned documents as additional evidence cannot be accepted and accordingly, dismissed the same. This Court finds no error in the order under challenge.
The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.06.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no bri/gm C.T. SELVAM, J gm To The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode.
Crl.R.C.No.715 of 2017 05.06.2017