Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
C. Kulandaivel & Anr. - Petitioners
Vs.
M. Ramya - Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 898 of 2015
Decided On : 03-10-2016
Domestic Violence Act - Property Dispute - Section 12, Section 25 - The court discussed the interpretation of shared household property under the Domestic Violence Act and the relevance of documentary evidence in proving residency rights. The key legal provisions considered were Section 12 and Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, claiming residential rights in a property. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that the property did not qualify as shared household. The lower appellate court, however, allowed the appeal based on documentary evidence produced by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower appellate court erred in relying solely on the documentary evidence without giving the petitioners a fair chance to contest it. As a result, the court set aside the orders of both lower courts and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of shared household property under the Domestic Violence Act and the admissibility of documentary evidence in proving residency rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of opportunity given to the petitioners to contest the documentary evidence, which violated the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The criminal revision was allowed, the orders of both lower courts were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal.
The Criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem made in CA No. 135 of 2014 dated 14.07.2015.
2. The brief facts which are relevant to the facts of the case are as follows :-
The present revision respondent has filed complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act before the Judicial Magistrate, Mahila Court, Salem, after hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the application in CMP No. 717 of 2014. Against which, the present revision petitioners/Kulandaivel and Ambujam filed petition in CMP No. 2083 of 2014 under Section 25 of the Domestic Violence Act, to set aside the order dated 03.01.2014 made in CMP No. 717 of 2014. The trial Court after hearing both sides comes to a conclusion that the household property not belongs to the husband of the petitioner and the property situated at 59/53, Thammanna Chetti Street, Gugai, Salem belong to the first petitioner/Kulandaivel, the same does not comes under the purview of shared household property, hence, the respondent is not entitled to claim residential right from the shared house. Aggrieved against the said order, the revision respondent herein preferred criminal appeal in CA.No.135 of 2014 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, the lower appellate Court after perusing the records allowed the criminal appeal by setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem made in CMP No. 2083 of 2014 dated 01.10.2014. As against the order of lower appellate Court, the criminal revision is before this Court by the petitioners.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contended that the properties herein belongs to the revision petitioners and will not come under the category of shared house hold of the respondent and her husband. It is further, contended that the property does not belong to the husband of the revision respondent/Ramya, the husband and wife after their marriage have not lived together in the house situated at 59/53, Thammanna Chetty Street, Gugai, Salem, the respondent has not produced any documents before the trial Court to show that the husband and wife have lived together in the above said property. Hence, the learned Counsel for the petitioners prays to set aside the order of the first appellate Court and to allow the criminal revision.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent mainly contended that the first appellate Court after perusing the entire documentary evidence produced before the Court comes to a conclusion that the present revision respondent and her husband have lived together in the shared household and the respondent herein also produced Bank pass book to that effect. The first appellate Court after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances of the case, correctly comes to the conclusion that the property comes under shared household and allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem made in CMP No. 2083 of 2014, dated 01.10.2014 and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the lower appellate Court, prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions submitted a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 3 SCC 169, S.R. Batra and another V. Smt. Taruna Batra before the lower court.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contentions submitted the following authorities before the lower court:-
1. 2007 (5) CTC 679, Vandhana V. T. Srikanth and Krishnamachari and
2. 2011 (1) CTC 841, M. Muruganantham and Susmitha Priya @ Priya v. M. Megala.
The authorities cited on both sides before the Courts below is not relevant at this stage to decide the present case in hand.
7. The first appellate Court mainly relied on the first page of the Bank Passbook produced on the side of the respondent/wife. The first appellate Court mainly relied upon the statement of the passbook,
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
