Saravanakumar v. Thenmozhi... RespondentCriminal Revision Petition filed praying to set aside the orderpassed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 7.12.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MOHAN RAMCRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1805 OF 2007AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2007Saravanakumar... PetitionerVs.Thenmozhi... RespondentCriminal Revision Petition filed praying to set aside the orderpassed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudiin CMP.NO.1397 of 2007 dated 30.10.2007.For Petitioner : Mr. G. AnabayachozhanO R D E RThe above criminal revision petition has been filed praying to setaside the order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-JudicialMagistrate, Thittakudi in CMP.NO.1397 of 2007 dated 30.10.2007.2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the abovecriminal revision are follows:The respondent herein is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner.The resondent submitted a petition under the provisions contained in theProtection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referredto as the "Act") to the Protection Officer and the Protection Officer hadsent a domestic incident report to the Court and the same has been takenon file in C.M.P.No.1397 of 2007. In the said application, the respondenthas alleged that from the time of marriage itself, the respondent'smother-in-law and the brothers of her husband harassed her demandingdowry. It is further alleged that not only the respondent but the infantchild was also harassed and the respondent and their child were driven outof the household on 23.6.2006. In respect of the said occurrence, acomplaint was lodged by the respondent before the All Women Police Stationon 23.10.2006, but no action whatsoever had been taken. On receipt of thesummons from the Court, the petitioner has filed a petition questioningthe maintainability of CMP.No.1397/2007 on the following grounds.i) The Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in view of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pendency of C.C.No.30/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court,Chidambaram.ii) Section 210 of Cr.P.C., has to be followed.iii) HMOP.No.78 of 2006 has been filed by the respondent seeking divorcepending before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam.iv) The present petition will amount to double jeopardy. The learnedMagistrate, after considering the above said contentions put forth by thepetitioner, rejected the same. Being aggrieved by that, the petitioner hasfiled the above criminal revision petition.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orderpassed by the learned Magistrate.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegedoccurrence in respect of which the proceedings have been initiated beforethe court below under the Act took place as early as 27.6.2006 and inrespect of that already a criminal case is pending, whereas the said Actcame into force only with effect from 26.10.2006 and as such the Act isnot applicable to the facts of this case and the respondent is notentitled to seek any remedy under the Act. Learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that the application itself was not filed in properformat and no specific relief has been sought for in the petition.5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner.6. Though the allegations made against the petitioner by therespondent relates to the occurrence that has taken place on 27.6.2006,one of the allegations is that the respondent and the child have beendriven out of the household and they are unable to maintain themselves. Itis not the case of the petitioner that the respondent and the child areliving in the house along with the petitioner. Even as on today, therespondent and the child are living away from the household. 7. Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence. Section 3(a) ofthe Act reads as follows:- 3. Definition of domestic violence.- For the purposes ofthis Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of therespondent shall constitute domestic violence case it-a) harms or injuries or endangers the health, safety, life,limp or well-being, whether mental or physical, of theaggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causingphysical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse andeconomic abuse." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Explanation – I (iv) (c) reads as follows:-iv) "economic abuse" includes-c) prohibition or restriction to continued access toresources or facilities which the aggrieved person isentitled to use or en joy by virture of the domesticrelationship including access to the shared household."8. A reading of the above said definition shows that the allegationsmade by the respondent against the petitioner attracts the above saidexplanation and squarely falls within the definition of domestic violencenamely, economic abuse, since the respondent has been driven out of thesaid household. Admittedly, the respondent and the child are not living inthe house along with the petitioner and thus the respondent's access tothe shared household is restricted and as per the allegations made by therespondent she has been prohibited from accessing the shared household andtherefore the domestic violence is continuing even after the coming intoforce of the Act. Therefore, even though the Act has come into force witheffect from 26.10.2006, the petition has been rightly entertained by thelearned Magistrate. The said Act being a benevolent piece of legislationto protect women from domestic violence, technicalities cannot stand inthe way of the Court entertaining the said application. Even if thepetition is not in proper form and the respondent has not sought for anyparticular relief, the relief can always be moulded by the Court below.Therefore, the said contention put forth by the learned counsel for thepetitioner cannot be countenanced and the same are devoid of merits andaccordingly rejected. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that inview of the pendency of C.C.No.30 of 2007 on the file of the learnedJudicial Magistrate, Chidamabaram and H.M.O.P.No.78 of 2006 on the file ofthe Principal Sub Court, Virudhachalam, the above application filed underthe Act ought not to have been entertained by the Court below isconcerned, it has to be pointed out that the relief sought for theaforesaid two proceedings is totally different from the relief that issought for in the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioneris unable to point out any bar in the Act for entertaining the applicationduring the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings. Therefore, the saidcontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot becountenanced. It has to be pointed out that Section 210 of the CriminalProcedure Code is not at all attracted to the facts of this case and assuch the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner based onSection 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be countenanced.Similarly the question of double jeopardy does not arise in this case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. For the said reasons, the criminal revision petition fails andthe same is dismissed. Consequently, connected misceelaneous petition isalso dismissed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarKb1. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi.2. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Chidambaram.3. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam.+ one cc to Mr. Anabaya Chozhan, Advocate, SR.72912VRK(CO)RP 05.01.2008.Crl.R.C.No.1805 of 2007