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) 3675

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Manikumar, J.
V.P. Anuradha - Petitioner
Versus
S. Sugantha @ Suganthi and others - Respondents
Criminal Revision Petition No. 702 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided On : 04-02-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:John Sathyan, Advocate
For the Respondent:M. Aravind Subramaniam, Advocate, S. Anand Venkatesh, Advocate.

Headnote:

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 18(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), 19(a) and 20(d) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – 498-A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Chapter VIII – Cruelty and Domestic violence - Harassment - Marriage between petitioner and 2nd respondent was solemnised - According to petitioner-wife, 2nd respondent was already married and divorced twice - Concealing said fact, marriage was solemnized-Husband and mother-in-law continuously harassed petitioner - His family members also inflicted physical abuse-She has to suffer economic abuse, on account of domestic violence, by her husband and others - Petitioner has further alleged that under influence of her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister-in-laws husband continuously ill-treated her - He was working as a Senior Manager in Chennai Petroleum Corporation and drawing a gross salary of Rs.1,30,000/-, per month - After marriage, they were living at Door and it is her matrimonial home - In said house, when her father-in-law, was admitted in hospital, due to cancer, her sister-in-law also lived with her, upto 2005 - Held, Petitioner cannot insist that Court below should have passed an order, directing residence, at Door, where spouses lived before dispute, started between them-Decision in Ajay Kumar Jains case, would lend support to case of respondents - Legislature has carved out a provision, enabling Court to pass an order, directing respondent to provide an alternate accommodation- Intention of Legislature, is to provide aggrieved person a residence, of course, with same level of enjoyment- Appellate Court has addressed said aspect-Maintenance ordered to be paid to aggrieved person has not been challenged and being paid regularly-In light of above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with impugned order - Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

ORDER :

S. Manikumar, J.

Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 27.06.2014, passed in C.A. No. 39 of 2013, on the file of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2. Material on record discloses that marriage between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent was solemnised on 27.01.2002. According to the petitioner-wife, the 2nd respondent was already married and divorced twice. Concealing the said fact, marriage was solemnised. Husband and mother-in-law continuously harassed the petitioner. His family members also inflicted physical abuse. She has to suffer economic abuse, on account of domestic violence, by her husband and others.

3. The petitioner has further alleged that under the influence of her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister-in-law's husband continuously ill-treated her. He was working as a Senior Manager in Chennai Petroleum Corporation and drawing a gross salary of Rs.1,30,000/-, per month. After the marriage, they were living at Door No. 1, 4th Cross Street, C.I.T. Colony, Mylapore, Chennai and it is her matrimonial home. In the said house, when her father-in-law, was admitted in the hospital, due to cancer, her sister-in-law also lived with her, upto 2005. After the demise of her father-in-law, she permanently settled in the said house, with her children, in the first floor. According to the petitioner, first floor was constructed by her husband, by obtaining loan.

4. The petitioner has further submitted that on 23.06.2010, her husband informed her that the said house belonged to his sister and therefore, he should leave the house. On 27.06.2010, wife's brothers asked her husband for security, and that the same was refused by him. On 14.07.2010, she was sent out of the matrimonial home. When she questioned the conduct of in-laws, her sister-in-law quarrelled with her and therefore, a police complaint was lodged. Thus, the respondents have thrown her out from the matrimonial home, at Door No. 1, 4th Cross Street, C.I.T. Colony, Mylapore, Chennai. With the above averments, I.A. No. 3735 of 2011 in Crl. M. P. No. 1076 of 2011, has been filed, under Sections 18(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), 19(a) and 20(d) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for an interim residence order and also for a restraint order, against the husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and sister-in-law's husband, from dispossessing or disturbing her possession, from the matrimonial home at Door No. 1, 4th Cross Street, C.I.T. Colony, Mylapore, Chennai.

5. In the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent-husband has denied the allegations and submitted that he has not committed any act of domestic violence. According to him, there was no question of aiding or abetting commission of acts of Domestic Violence. House in Door No. 1, 4th Cross Street, C.I.T. Colony, Mylapore, Chennai, belonged to his mother, Mrs. M. S. Parvatham, W/o. Sethuraman, as per the registered Settlement Deed, dated 27.12.2005, executed by her husband, Late Sethuraman. Due to the harassment committed by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-husband is living separately at Door No. 12, Old No. 42, Oliver Road, Mylapore, Chennai-4 and he has not visited the residence at Door No. 1, First Floor, 4th Cross Street, C.I.T. Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai.

6. The 2nd respondent has further submitted that his nephew has moved out and living separately from the Mother. Mother is a senior citizen and her daughter, 1st respondent is taking care of her. All the properties of the petitioner are in a bank locker and it is in her custody. The petitioner has filed a divorce petition. House is owned by the 1st respondent-Mother and therefore, no relief under Section 19 of the Act, can be granted. He has no objection for the petitioner to live at G2, Plot No. 14, Brindavan Flats, 10th Street, Sowmya Nagar, Perumbakkam, Chennai-100, which is owned by him. For the above said reasons, he has prayed for dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition.

7. Mother of the 1st respondent

























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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