1. This criminal revision has been preferred against the dismissal of the private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband for the offence under Sections 499, 500 and 501 I.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submitted that both the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband fell in love and their marriage was performed on 17.02.1989. In Thindivanam, they purchased a house property in the name of the petitioner/wife. The respondent/husband forced the petitioner/wife to transfer the property stands in her name, thereby linking the friend of complainant's elder son. In pursuance of the same, the respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.56/2008, on the file of Sub-Court, Tindivanam, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. He also filed a suit in O.S.No.59/2008 before the Sub-Court, Tindivanam, for declaration of title to the suit property (i.e.) the house property, which stands in the name of the petitioner/wife. So the petitioner/wife preferred private complaint, but the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam, has not considered the aspects in proper perspective, dismissed the private complaint stating that no prima facie case has been made out. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate misconstrued Fifth Exception of Section 499 I.P.C. is applicable to the case. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal of private complaint and for allowing of this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.56/2008 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and also filed a suit in O.S.No.59/2008 for declaration of title to the suit property and both were pending before the Sub-Court, Tindivanam. Since the cases are subjudice, the petitioner can invoke exception under Section 499 I.P.C. That factum has been correctly considered by the learned Magistrate and came to the correct conclusion that no prima facie case has been made against the respondent to take private complaint. So the dismissal order passed by the Court below does not warrant any interference and therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the revision.

4. Considered the submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record.

5. Admitted facts are the revision petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. The respondent/husband herein has filed H.M.O.P.No.56/2008 for divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(i)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act and the copy of the petition was marked as Ex.P1. The respondent/husband also filed a suit in O.S.No.59/2008 for declaration of title and the copy of the plaint was marked as Ex.P2. Before preferring private complaint, the petitioner/accused issued Ex.P3 notice to the respondent/husband and the postal acknowledgement card was marked as Ex.P4. The revision petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and in her evidence, she stated that without any evidence, her husband pleaded that she is having adultery life with one Anju alias Prakash, who is none other than friend of her elder son. Since the respondent/husband filed a suit with false and perverse allegations by making derogatory statements against the petitioner/accused, she preferred private complaint.

6. On perusal of the divorce petition under Ex.P1, it was specifically mentioned that the wife is leading adultery life with Anju alias Prakash, who was added as second respondent therein. In the suit also, the respondent/husband referred to her wife is leading adultery life with Anju alias Prakash.

7. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider Section 499 I.P.C. , which is extracted as follows:

"499-Defamation:

Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of