High Court · 2025

Crl.OP(MD)No.21535 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 15.12.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRICrl.O.P.(MD).No.21535 of 2025Raghumathul Rajathi...Petitioner/Respondent/Complainant Vs.Sahul Hameed...Respondent/Petitioner/ComplainantPrayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the order dated 11.09.2025 made in Cr.R.C.No.7 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, and set aside the order dated 28.09.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.109 of 2021 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Sivagangai and set aside the same.For Petitioner: Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff For M/s. Ajmal AssociatesFor Respondent: Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER Preface:This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the wife/complainant, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21535 of 2025assailing the revisional order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Cr.R.C.No.7 of 2022, whereby the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, set aside the well-reasoned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate directing return of 6 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.2. The petitioner contends that the impugned revisional order is legally unsustainable, suffers from non-application of mind, and amounts to a mechanical remand, nullifying a final adjudication already rendered after trial under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.Case of the petitioner:3. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised as per Muslim customs and rituals. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was gifted gold jewellery and cash. According to the petitioner, she returned to her parental home with 19 sovereigns of gold jewellery, while the remaining 6 sovereigns of gold jewellery and a sum of Rs.30,000/- continued to remain in the 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21535 of 2025custody of the respondent. After dissolution of marriage, the respondent failed to return the said jewellery and cash, compelling the petitioner to initiate proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Crl.M.P.No.109 of 2021.4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the pleadings, sworn statement, and materials placed on record, allowed the petition on 28.09.2021, directing the respondent to return 6 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner.Gist of the Impugned Order:5. Aggrieved by the Magistrate’s order, the respondent/husband preferred Cr.R.C.No.7 of 2022 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. By order dated 11.09.2025, the revisional Court allowed the revision, set aside the Magistrate’s order, and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal, observing inter alia that no documentary evidence had been produced to prove the giving of jewellery and cash; and Muslim men do not ordinarily wear gold ornaments. The revisional 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21535 of 2025Court further stated that the remand was ordered “based on the request of both counsel”.Grounds for setting aside the revisional order:6. The petitioner assails the impugned revisional order on the following substantial grounds:(i) The revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a remand without recording any perversity or illegality in the Magistrate’s findings.(ii) The alleged “consent remand” does not absolve the revisional Court of its duty to independently apply its judicial mind.(iii) The Magistrate had already adjudicated the matter after trial, permitting remand merely to enable further evidence amounts to filling up lacunae, which is impermissible in revisional jurisdiction.(iv) The observation that “Muslim men do not wear gold” is wholly irrelevant to the issue of entrustment and retention of a woman’s jewellery and reflects a clear misdirection in law.4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21535 of 2025(v) The question whether 6 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.30,000/- were retained by the respondent is a pure question of fact, already decided by the learned Trial Court, and not a ground for remand.Submissions:7. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there were contradictions in the petitioner’s evidence, that documentary proof was lacking, and that the revisional Court rightly ordered remand to afford an opportunity to both sides. It was further contended that since the remand was allegedly by consent, the petitioner cannot now challenge the same.8. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.Point for Consideration:9. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the revisional Court was justified in setting aside the Magistrate’s final order and remanding the matter for fresh trial, despite the issue 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21535 of 2025relating to 6 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.30,000/- having already been adjudicated on merits?Analysis:10. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., 1973, corresponding provisions is well settled. A revisional Court may interfere only where there is patent illegality, material irregularity, or perversity in the order under challenge.11. In the present case, the learned Magistrate exercised jurisdiction under the DV Act, assessed the materials placed, and passed a final order directing return of jewellery and cash. The revisional Court has not recorded any finding that the Magistrate’s conclusions were perverse or based on no evidence.12. A mechanical remand, merely on the premise that documentary evidence was not produced or that further evidence could be adduced, is impermissible. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to grant a party a second innings.6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21535 of 202513. The observation that Muslim men do not wear gold ornaments is legally irrelevant. The issue is not whether the respondent wore the jewellery, but whether the petitioner’s stridhan/seethana articles were entrusted and unlawfully retained, constituting economic abuse under Section 3 of the DV Act, 2005.14. Even assuming that the remand was suggested by counsel, consent of parties cannot validate an otherwise illegal or unwarranted remand order. Judicial orders must stand on legal reasoning, not on concessions.15. The involvement of 6 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.30,000/- is undeniably a matter of trial, and that trial has already culminated in a reasoned order. The revisional Court erred in unsettling that adjudication without lawful justification.16. Proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are intended to provide effective and timely relief to aggrieved women. Courts must guard against dilatory tactics that defeat the very object of the statute. Revisional interference, particularly by way of remand, 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21535 of 2025must be exercised sparingly and only for compelling legal reasons, which are conspicuously absent in the present case.17. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Cr.R.C.No.7 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, is set aside.18. The order dated 28.09.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.109 of 2021 by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 / Additional Mahila Court, Sivagangai, directing the respondent to return 6 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner, is restored and shall stand confirmed. The respondent shall comply with the learned Magistrate’s order within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.15.12.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : Yes/ NoSml 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21535 of 2025To1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.2.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Sivagangai.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP(MD)No.21535 of 2025L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J. SmlCRL OP(MD)No.21535 of 202515.12.2025 10/10