High Court · 2024
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.07.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANICrl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024Sivakumar... PetitionerVs.Nagalakshmi... RespondentPrayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the order dated 15.12.2022 made in C.A.No.48 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District modifying the order dated 14.07.2021 made in D.V.C.No.32 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore.For Petitioner:Mr.T.P.PrabakaranFor Respondent:Mr.M.Sudharsan*****ORDERThe present revision is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Page No.1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024Judge, Vellore, Vellore District in C.A.No.48 of 2021 modifying the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore in D.V.C.No.32 of 2020.2. The case of the petitioner is that, the marriage of the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife was solemnised on 26.04.2015 at Sethuvalai Village. While so, due to some matrimonial dispute between them, the petitioner filed divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore, in which the respondent filed a petition seeking interim maintenance and the trial court ordered for Rs.4,000/- per month and the petitioner complied with the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore till August, 2021. In such circumstances, during the pendency of HMOP, alleging that, the petitioner tortured the respondent in many ways and subjected her to cruelty and he also had illicit intimacy with one Amala and when the same was questioned by the respondent, the petitioner refused to maintain the respondent, the respondent filed a maintenance case in FCMC.No.59 of 2019 on the file of the learned Family Court, Vellore and the Family Court, Vellore passed an order directing the petitioner to pay a Page No.2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the respondent and in which, the respondent has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.267 of 2021 to receive arrears of maintenance amount from the petitioner. Further, even though the respondent has not taken any steps for reunion with the petitioner from the year 2017 to 2021, during the time when the trial was about to conclude, the respondent has filed a petition u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.127 of 2022. During the pendency of the above said petition, the respondent filed a petition u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore in D.V.C.No.32 of 2020 seeking relief of accommodation, return of 19½ sovereigns of gold jewels, Yamaha two-wheeler along with Streedhana Articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/- alleged to have been given to the petitioner at the time of marriage, maintenance and compensation and the trial court granted protection order, residential order and also ordered Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance and further, directed the petitioner to return all the streedhana articles to the respondent, however, dismissed the petition in respect of compensation and also dismissed the petition as against the mother of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed an appeal in C.A.No.48 Page No.3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024of 2021 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District and the lower appellate court vide impugned order 15.12.2022 had partly allowed the appeal, modifying the monthly maintenance amount to Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing of DVC petition and further directed the petitioner to return the 16½ sovereigns of gold jewels along with the Sreedhana Articles to the respondent and also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, though the petitioner was working as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force, Assam and earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- p.m., however, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent is highly excessive, since he has to take care of his parents and he has to pay the loan amount. He further submitted that, without any materials, the lower appellate court directed the petitioner to return 16½ sovereigns of gold jewels, which is wholly unsustainable. Further, the lower appellate court has awarded a sum of Page No.4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation in favour of the respondent, which is also wholly unsustainable and the same has been ordered without considering the financial capacity of the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this revision.4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, by considering all the materials available on record, the lower appellate court has passed the impugned order, which is wholly sustainable and the same does not require any interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the revision.5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.6. Admittedly, the relationship between the parties are not in dispute and both the parties are living separately and the same is also not in dispute. It is to be pointed out that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and the comforts, which were available to the spouse should not be lost due to the friction between them. Only to that end, Page No.5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024Section 125 Cr.P.C. was brought into the statute. In such a backdrop, it becomes the duty of the husband to maintain his wife.7. In the case on hand, the petitioner claims that he is working as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force at Assam and earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- p.m. Out of the said income, it is claimed by the petitioner that he has to take care of his parents and he has to pay loan, however, he has not produced any document to that effect. Further, the respondent has established that the petitioner has got sufficient means, whereas she has no means to maintain herself. Despite having sufficient means, the petitioner neglected to maintain his wife and therefore, the lower appellate court modified the maintenance amount to Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the respondent. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and cost of living prevailing as on date, the lower appellate court has ordered Rs.15,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the respondent, which cannot be said to excessive. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. As far as the direction of the lower appellate court directing the Page No.6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024petitioner to return the 16½ sovereigns of gold jewels along with the Sreedhana Articles to the respondent is concerned, no material evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the fact that the petitioner is having the said 16 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels belonging to the respondent. Hence, this court is of the view that, the respondent is not entitled to receive 16 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels from the petitioner. Therefore, in this regard, this court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower appellate court by directing the petitioner to return all the Sreedhana Articles alone.9. Further, the lower appellate court has granted a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent. It is seen from the records that inspite of orders passed by the courts, the petitioner has not come forward to pay the monthly maintenance to the respondent from the year 2017 onwards. Further, the respondent has made it clear that she is ready to reunite with the petitioner, however, the petitioner has not stated any valid reasons for his long separation and not taken any steps for reunion, thereby the respondent was subjected to severe mental agony and torture by the petitioner in denying her basic needs, for which, the Page No.7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024respondent is entitled to receive compensation from the petitioner. However, this court is of the view that though the respondent is entitled to receive compensation from the petitioner, however the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- with 6% interest is highly excessive. Therefore, this court is inclined to reduce the compensation amount to Rs.2,00,000/- without any interest.10. Accordingly, the court is inclined to allow this revision in the following terms :-(i) the order passed by the lower appellate court directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent from the date of filing of DVC petition is confirmed and the petitioner is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance amount, less the amount, if any, already paid, to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;(ii) the direction of the lower appellate court directing the petitioner to return the 16½ sovereigns of gold jewels to the respondent is set aside, however, the petitioner is directed to return all the Sreedhana Page No.8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024Articles to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;(iii) the petitioner is directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- without any interest to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in the above terms.19.07.2024Index : Yes / NoSpeaking order / Non-speaking orderNCC: Yes / NospTo1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore.Page No.9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024M.DHANDAPANI, J.spCrl.R.C.No.1213 of 202419.07.2024Page No.10 of 10
Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.07.2024CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANICrl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024Sivakumar... PetitionerVs.Nagalakshmi... RespondentPrayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the order dated 15.12.2022 made in C.A.No.48 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District modifying the order dated 14.07.2021 made in D.V.C.No.32 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore.For Petitioner:Mr.T.P.PrabakaranFor Respondent:Mr.M.Sudharsan*****ORDERThe present revision is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Page No.1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024Judge, Vellore, Vellore District in C.A.No.48 of 2021 modifying the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore in D.V.C.No.32 of 2020.2. The case of the petitioner is that, the marriage of the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife was solemnised on 26.04.2015 at Sethuvalai Village. While so, due to some matrimonial dispute between them, the petitioner filed divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.117 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore, in which the respondent filed a petition seeking interim maintenance and the trial court ordered for Rs.4,000/- per month and the petitioner complied with the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore till August, 2021. In such circumstances, during the pendency of HMOP, alleging that, the petitioner tortured the respondent in many ways and subjected her to cruelty and he also had illicit intimacy with one Amala and when the same was questioned by the respondent, the petitioner refused to maintain the respondent, the respondent filed a maintenance case in FCMC.No.59 of 2019 on the file of the learned Family Court, Vellore and the Family Court, Vellore passed an order directing the petitioner to pay a Page No.2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the respondent and in which, the respondent has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.267 of 2021 to receive arrears of maintenance amount from the petitioner. Further, even though the respondent has not taken any steps for reunion with the petitioner from the year 2017 to 2021, during the time when the trial was about to conclude, the respondent has filed a petition u/s 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.127 of 2022. During the pendency of the above said petition, the respondent filed a petition u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore in D.V.C.No.32 of 2020 seeking relief of accommodation, return of 19½ sovereigns of gold jewels, Yamaha two-wheeler along with Streedhana Articles worth about Rs.1,50,000/- alleged to have been given to the petitioner at the time of marriage, maintenance and compensation and the trial court granted protection order, residential order and also ordered Rs.5,000/- as monthly maintenance and further, directed the petitioner to return all the streedhana articles to the respondent, however, dismissed the petition in respect of compensation and also dismissed the petition as against the mother of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed an appeal in C.A.No.48 Page No.3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024of 2021 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District and the lower appellate court vide impugned order 15.12.2022 had partly allowed the appeal, modifying the monthly maintenance amount to Rs.15,000/- from the date of filing of DVC petition and further directed the petitioner to return the 16½ sovereigns of gold jewels along with the Sreedhana Articles to the respondent and also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, though the petitioner was working as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force, Assam and earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- p.m., however, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent is highly excessive, since he has to take care of his parents and he has to pay the loan amount. He further submitted that, without any materials, the lower appellate court directed the petitioner to return 16½ sovereigns of gold jewels, which is wholly unsustainable. Further, the lower appellate court has awarded a sum of Page No.4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation in favour of the respondent, which is also wholly unsustainable and the same has been ordered without considering the financial capacity of the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this revision.4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that, by considering all the materials available on record, the lower appellate court has passed the impugned order, which is wholly sustainable and the same does not require any interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the revision.5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.6. Admittedly, the relationship between the parties are not in dispute and both the parties are living separately and the same is also not in dispute. It is to be pointed out that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and the comforts, which were available to the spouse should not be lost due to the friction between them. Only to that end, Page No.5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024Section 125 Cr.P.C. was brought into the statute. In such a backdrop, it becomes the duty of the husband to maintain his wife.7. In the case on hand, the petitioner claims that he is working as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force at Assam and earning a sum of Rs.60,000/- p.m. Out of the said income, it is claimed by the petitioner that he has to take care of his parents and he has to pay loan, however, he has not produced any document to that effect. Further, the respondent has established that the petitioner has got sufficient means, whereas she has no means to maintain herself. Despite having sufficient means, the petitioner neglected to maintain his wife and therefore, the lower appellate court modified the maintenance amount to Rs.15,000/- p.m. to the respondent. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and cost of living prevailing as on date, the lower appellate court has ordered Rs.15,000/- p.m. as maintenance to the respondent, which cannot be said to excessive. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 8. As far as the direction of the lower appellate court directing the Page No.6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024petitioner to return the 16½ sovereigns of gold jewels along with the Sreedhana Articles to the respondent is concerned, no material evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the fact that the petitioner is having the said 16 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels belonging to the respondent. Hence, this court is of the view that, the respondent is not entitled to receive 16 ½ sovereigns of gold jewels from the petitioner. Therefore, in this regard, this court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower appellate court by directing the petitioner to return all the Sreedhana Articles alone.9. Further, the lower appellate court has granted a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation to the respondent. It is seen from the records that inspite of orders passed by the courts, the petitioner has not come forward to pay the monthly maintenance to the respondent from the year 2017 onwards. Further, the respondent has made it clear that she is ready to reunite with the petitioner, however, the petitioner has not stated any valid reasons for his long separation and not taken any steps for reunion, thereby the respondent was subjected to severe mental agony and torture by the petitioner in denying her basic needs, for which, the Page No.7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024respondent is entitled to receive compensation from the petitioner. However, this court is of the view that though the respondent is entitled to receive compensation from the petitioner, however the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- with 6% interest is highly excessive. Therefore, this court is inclined to reduce the compensation amount to Rs.2,00,000/- without any interest.10. Accordingly, the court is inclined to allow this revision in the following terms :-(i) the order passed by the lower appellate court directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent from the date of filing of DVC petition is confirmed and the petitioner is directed to pay the arrears of maintenance amount, less the amount, if any, already paid, to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;(ii) the direction of the lower appellate court directing the petitioner to return the 16½ sovereigns of gold jewels to the respondent is set aside, however, the petitioner is directed to return all the Sreedhana Page No.8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024Articles to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;(iii) the petitioner is directed to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- without any interest to the respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in the above terms.19.07.2024Index : Yes / NoSpeaking order / Non-speaking orderNCC: Yes / NospTo1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Vellore.Page No.9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.1213 of 2024M.DHANDAPANI, J.spCrl.R.C.No.1213 of 202419.07.2024Page No.10 of 10