IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.04.2017 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2014 H. Logesh .. Petitioner Vs Tmt. G. Menaka @ Mekala .. Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the Judgment dated 06.12.2013, passed in C.A. No.5 of 2010 by the Learned Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, confirming the Judgment dated 31.08.2009 passed in C.M.P.No.3414 of 2008, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor.
For Petitioner : M/s. Jayasri Baskar For Respondent : M/s. M.Guruprasad
ORDER
The Petitioner herein is the husband. The respondent/wife filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic violence Act 2005 seeking various reliefs U/s. 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act. The Trial Court by an order dated 31.08.2009 allowed the application and ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month payable by the petitioner herein to the respondent and to handover the 8 sovereigns of gold jewels to the respondent herein, and also to give a residence in their shared house to the respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner/husband, preferred an appeal in C.A.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Nilgiris, and the lower appellate Court also confirmed the order passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Now, challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.
2. The case of the respondent/complainant is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 16.09.2007. At the time of marriage, the respondent/complainant was presented with 10 sovereigns of gold jewels. But after the marriage, jewels were taken by the petitioner/husband and he has also demanded 50,000/- as dowry. After some time, the respondent/complainant was chased away by the petitioner/husband and the respondent was living at her parental house, and the petitioner caused the domestic violence. Hence, the respondent filed the above petition. The petitioner herein filed a counter affidavit contending that at the time of marriage only 8 sovereigns of gold jewels were worn by the respondent/wife, and she did not give the same to the petitioner's family and she is only keeping the jewels with her. She never cared the sick parents of the petitioner and the petitioner did not cause any domestic violence.
3. In order to prove her case, the respondent/complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and marked 3 documents. The petitioner has examined himself as DW1 and marked 7 documents on his side.
4. Having considered all the materials, the trial Court granted relief to the respondent under Section 18(a) of the Act prohibiting the petitioner for committing any domestic violence and under Section 18(c), directed the petitioner to return 8 sovereigns of gold jewels to the respondent/complainant and further restraining the petitioner from dispossessing the respondent from the shared household under Section 19(a) of the Act, and also directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent under Section 20(d) of the Act. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Niligiris at Udhagamandalam. The lower appellate court confirming the order passed by the trial court, dismissed the appeal. Now, challenging the same, the present revision is filed before this court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence to show that the respondent has given 8 sovereigns of gold jewels to the petitioner and apart from that he is only a painter and does not have any permanent job and he has no means to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- and both the courts below allowed the application without considering the materials available on record in proper perspective.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent/complainant is unemployed and she is not able to maintain herself and she is now living at the mercy of her parents and the petitioner/husband has means to pay the maintenance and considering the same, both the Courts have concurrently held that the petitioner has to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record carefully.
8. As rightly contended by the petitioner/respondent both the courts had concurrently held that before marriage, the respondent/wife was employed and after marriage, she resigned the job and she is not employed and Rs.3000/- per month is only a meagre amount, for which the petitioner has means and I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the courts below and the amount ordered by the court below is not high.
9. So far as the other reliefs are concerned, the court below concurrently held that the respondent/wife is now living only in her parental house and she is entitled for shared household with the petitioner and hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the courts below.
10. So far as the return of jewels are concerned considering the evidence of the respondent/complainant, the courts below came to a conclusion that 8 sovereigns of gold jewels were given to the petitioner's family and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1.
11. Considering the above facts, I find no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the courts below and there is no merits in the revision.
12. Accordingly the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
04.04.2017 mrp Index:Yes/no Internet: yes/no Speaking order/non speaking order To The Sessions Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
mrp Crl.R.C.No.723 of 2014 04.04.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in