IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 08.06.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 13.06.2017 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
CRL.R.C.No.885 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2014
1. Tarun Kumar
2. Ishwarchand
3. Pushpa Devi
4. Sohanlal
5. Leela Devi … Petitioners Vs.
Lakshmi @ Manisha … Respondent Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in Crl.A.No.212 of 2011 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and set aside the order dated 09.07.2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.X.Masood For respondent : Mr.A.Raghunathan, ` Sr. counsel, for Mr.M.Aravind Kumar O R D E R The criminal revision has been filed against the order, passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.A.No.212 of 2011, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, directing the petitioners to return the sridhana articles to the respondent/wife, and also to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month to her from the date of filing of the petition till the date of granting divorce by the Family Court.
2. The case of the respondent/complainant is as follows:
The first petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent and the other petitioners are in-laws of the respondent. The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent took place on 24.11.2008. At the time of marriage, the respondent's father gave 595 grams of gold and 9.750 kilo grams of silver articles, along with expensive household articles and dress materials to the respondent. After marriage, the petitioners harassed the respondent demanding dowry and also physically assaulted her. Hence, the respondent filed a petition under Section 12(1) of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, seeking various remedies under Section 18, 20, 22 and 23, seeking protection from Domestic Violence, to return the sridhana articles, and also to pay maintenance.
3. The petitioners herein contested the above petition, denying the allegation made in the petition, and they have specifically denied the allegation regarding the demand of dowry from the respondent, but they have accepted that whatever given by the respondent's father on his own Will, at the time of marriage was recieved by them. Apart from that the petitioners had stated that the respondent was suffering from mental problem, and she has also made several attempts to commit suicide in the matrimonial home. In the above circumstances, the first petitioner filed a divorce petition against the respondent in O.P.No.1182 of 2010 before the Family Court, Chennai and after the receipt of notice from the Family Court, the present complaint has been filed.
4. The trial Court allowed the application directing the petitioners herein to pay the maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of filing of the petition and also directed them to return the sridhana articles including the gold, silver ornaments.
5. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed an appeal in C.A.No.212 of 2011 before the IV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the lower appellate Court by judgment dated 09.07.2014, partly allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of filing of the petition till the date of granting divorce by the Family Court, and also directed the petitioners to return the sridhana property of the respondent, namely, 595 gram of gold, 9.750 kilograms of silver and another 95 grams of gold to the respondent within two weeks. Now, challenging the said order, the petitioners have filed the present revision.
6. Heard Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.A.Ragunathan, senior counsel, appearing for the respondent and perused the judgment and the materials available on record carefully.
7. The specific case of the respondent/wife is that at the time of marriage, her father has given 595 gram of gold, 9.750 kilograms of silver and another 95 grams of gold to the petitioners' family. But, in order to prove the same, absolutely, there is no evidence available on record, except the oral statement of the respondent. The trial Court considering the photographs filed by the respondent, held that the photographs show that the respondent's father has gifted jewels to his daughter/respondent, and directed the petitioners to return the above sridhana articles and also directed the petitioners to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month without considering the means of the first petitioner. However, the lower appellate Court considering the fact that no evidence has been let in by either side to substantiate their claim, relying upon the report filed by the Protection Officer and the other materials, came to a conclusion that the petitioners had committed offence under Domestic Violence Act against the respondent and also relying upon the evidence of the second petitioner herein in some other proceedings, where in, he has stated that while leaving from the matrimonial home, the respondent did not carry anything and thus, the lower appellate court came to a conclusion that all the sridhana properties are only with the petitioners herein.
8. The findings of both the Courts that at the time of marriage, the respondent's father has given sridhana properties to the extent mentioned by them, is absolutely without any evidence. But the petitioners herein had filed a counter affidavit before the trial court and admitted in paragraph 4 of the counter that they have accepted the respondent with whatsoever given by her father out of his own will. From that admission, it would be seen that at the time of marriage something was given as sridhana to the respondent. In the above circumstances, we can safely hold that at the time of marriage, the petitioners received some property from the respondent as sridhana. Even though, there is no evidence, regarding quantum of sridhana given to the petitioner, taking into consideration of the fact and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only), towards the sridhana articles received by them, to the respondent.
9. So far as the order of maintenance is concerned the lower appellate Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month till the granting of divorce by the Family court. Now, it is brought to my notice that already Family Court has granted divorce in O.P.No.1182 of 2010 on 29.07.2013, wherein the Family Court awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as a permanent alimony. Challenging the same, the respondent filed an appeal in C.M.A.No.3322 of 2017 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 23.02.2016 enhanced permanent alimony from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/- and it is also admitted that the amount has also been paid by the petitioners. In the above circumstances, since already a permanent alimony has been given to the respondent, she is not entitled for any maintenance.
10. In the result, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed and the order of the Court below is modified and the petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs only) to the respondent towards the sridhana articles received from the respondent and the respondent is not entitled to get any maintenance as she has already received the permanent alimony. The petitioners are directed to pay the amount within a period of eight(8) weeks from today. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
13.06.2017
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order mrp To
1. The IV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
mrp
Pre-delivery Order in
Crl.R.C.No.885 of 2014
13.06.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in