SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Mad) 1293

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. MANIKUMAR, J.

K. Arul @ Arul Prakasam – Appellant
Versus
Vijayalakshmi – Respondent
Crl. R.C .No. 454 of 2013
Decided On : 11-03-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K. Arul @ Arul Prakasam (Party-in-Person)
For the Respondents:D. Ravichander, Advocate.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 - RESIDENCE ORDER - MAINTENANCE - FRAUD - FORGERY - MISREPRESENTATION - ILLEGALITY - PROCEDURE - EVIDENCE - FINDINGS OF FACT - APPELLATE COURT - COSTS.

Fact of the Case:

Wife filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking residence order, maintenance, and protection from harassment by her husband. The Judicial Magistrate granted residence order and maintenance to the wife and children. The husband appealed, alleging fraud, forgery, misrepresentation, and illegality in the wife's complaint. The Sessions Court confirmed the lower court's order, reducing the maintenance amount. The husband filed a revision petition in the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the allegations of fraud, forgery, misrepresentation, and illegality were not supported by any evidence and were made for the first time in the revision petition. The court also held that the procedure followed by the lower court was in accordance with the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that the findings of fact by the lower court and the appellate court were not perverse or without evidence. The court dismissed the revision petition with costs.

Issues: 1. Whether the allegations of fraud, forgery, misrepresentation, and illegality made by the husband were supported by evidence? 2. Whether the procedure followed by the lower court was in accordance with the Domestic Violence Act, 2005? 3. Whether the findings of fact by the lower court and the appellate court were perverse or without evidence?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allegations of fraud, forgery, misrepresentation, and illegality were not supported by any evidence and were made for the first time in the revision petition. The court relied on the fact that the husband had not raised these allegations in his counter-affidavit, in his grounds of appeal, or in his memorandum of grounds of revision. 2. The court held that the procedure followed by the lower court was in accordance with the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court relied on the fact that the District Protection Officer had conducted an enquiry and submitted a Domestic Violence Incident Report, and that the District Social Welfare Officer had addressed a letter to the Judicial Magistrate requesting him to take the case on file. 3. The court held that the findings of fact by the lower court and the appellate court were not perverse or without evidence. The court relied on the fact that the wife had adduced evidence to substantiate her allegations of domestic violence, and that the husband had also adduced evidence in his defense.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition with costs.

JUDGMENT:-

1. Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment made in C.A.No.32 of 2011 dated 10.12.2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. Earlier in Crl.M.P.No.300 of 2010, filed by the respondent/wife, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Cuddalore, granted Residence order to the complainant to reside at Door No.222/5, Dhanalakshmi Nagar, Nehru Nagar, Cuddalore, with her two children and also directed the Revision petitioner/husband to pay maintenance to them, at Rs.5,000/- per month. Direction, has also been granted not to harass the complainant and her two children, mentally or physically. On appeal in C.A.No.32 of 2011, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, by judgment dated 10.12.2011 has reduced the quantum of maintenance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.3,500/- per month and confirmed the other orders, passed by the trial Court.

2. Case of the wife, as deduced from the material on record, are as follows:

(i) On 03.09.1992, marriage between the parties to the lis was solemnised. Out of wedlock there were two children. At the time of taking the case on file, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, son, Ajay Prakash was aged 17 and daughter, Niveda was aged 12 years. Wife has submitted that at the time of marriage, as Stridhana, articles such as 15 sovereigns of Gold, 2 silver lamps, 2 silver bowls (Chimizh), cot, bureau, grinder, brass and ever silver vessels worth 3 Lakhs, were given by her parents. It is her further contention that at the time of marriage, husband was working in the Army. Thereafter, on 30.04.1997, he retired from Army.

(ii) Only for one year, after marriage, he was in good state of mind. Thereafter, the petitioner was suffering from intermittent psychopathic disorder. He ill treated, pushed her out of the house, beat her with lathi, visited the school, where the complainant worked as a teacher, sought for unnecessary information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 abused her, spoke ill about her chastity, paternity of the children and all the above acts, caused great hardship to her and affected the future of her children. On 03.04.2001, he beat her with a hot cooking pan. He also attempted to murder her by electrocution.

(iii) She has further stated that on 25.02.2006, petitioner has slapped her, for which, she had taken treatment. When she was staying in her parents house at No.LIG-54, Anna Nagar, Cuddalore on 15.05.2009, he entered into the said house, beat the applicant and her father. In this context, she preferred a complaint on 08.06.2009 to the All Women Police Station, Cuddalore and also to the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, on 16.09.2009 respectively.

(iv) She has also filed HMOP No.105 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, for divorce. Wife has also filed O.S.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore, for a permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner/husband not to disturb her. Pending disposal of the above said proceedings, a petition has also been made to the Social Welfare Officer. According to the applicant/wife, an enquiry has been conducted by the said authority. Thereafter, Crl.M.P.No.300 of 2010 has been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Cuddalore, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The applicant has sought for, following reliefs,

(i) for a direction under Section 18 that husband/petitioner should not disturb wife, children and her family members

(ii) for a direction under Section 19 of the Act directing, the petitioner/husband to handover possession of the house, in which, she and her children were living and sent out.

(iii) for a direction, under Section 20 of the Act, for maintenance for herself and children at Rs.10,000/- per month.

(iv) for a direction, under Secti

















































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top