Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4037
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Selvakumar - Petitioner
Versus
Prabha @ Prabhavathi - Respondent
Crl.R.C.Nos. 767 & 838 of 2017 & 1139 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.No. 7652 of 2017
Decided On : 12-11-2018
For the Petitioner:L. Mouli, Advocate
For the Respondent:C. Deivasigamani, Advocate
The court upheld the compensation awarded to the appellant wife based on evidence of domestic violence, financial status of the parties, and the settlement deed executed by the respondent husband.
Headnote:
Domestic Violence - Compensation - Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act - [18, 19, 20, 22] - The court discussed the evidence of domestic violence, assault, and occupational threat by the respondent husband. The court also considered the financial status of the parties and the settlement deed executed by the respondent husband in favor of the appellant wife. The court found the compensation awarded to be justified based on the circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant wife alleged that the respondent husband concealed his first marriage and wealth, assaulted her, and forced her to resign from her government job. She sought relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. The lower courts partly allowed the petition and enhanced the compensation amount, which was challenged through revisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found evidence of domestic violence, assault, and occupational threat by the respondent husband. It considered the financial status of the parties and the settlement deed executed by the respondent husband in favor of the appellant wife. The court upheld the compensation awarded to the appellant wife.
Issues: Alleged domestic violence, assault, and occupational threat by the respondent husband. Justification of the compensation amount awarded to the appellant wife.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence of domestic violence, financial status of the parties, and the settlement deed executed by the respondent husband in favor of the appellant wife to uphold the compensation awarded.
Final Decision: All the criminal revision cases were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
1. The husband had filed the revisions in Crl.R.C.Nos.767 and 838 of 2017 assailing the common judgment dated 2.6.2016 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam in Criminal Appeal Nos.85 and 91 of 2015, whereas the wife filed the revision in Crl.R.C.No.1139 of 2016, assailing the very same judgment dated 2.6.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2015.
2. The parties are referred to as per their rank in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2015 before the Court below, i.e., the appellant is wife and the respondent is husband.
3. The facts in a nutshell are as under: The parties to the present litigation got married on 13.12.2007 and during the course of marriage, the respondent husband informed the appellant wife that his first wife died due to cancer and that he is a wealthy person. It is stated that after one year, the appellant came to know about the existence of the first wife of the respondent and on questioning, the respondent joined hands with his first wife and took 40 sovereign jewels and threw the appellant wife out of the house. The appellant wife further stated that she had to give up her government job at the insistence of the respondent husband.
4. As the respondent's parents hated the appellant wife, she lodged a complaint on 7.3.2011 to the All Women Police Station, Vridhchalam, but since the respondent was residing at Coimbatore, the police authorities advised the appellant to lodge a complaint at Coimbatore. Under such circumstances, the appellant claimed relief’s under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act.
5. The above said claim was resisted by the respondent by filing counter affidavit and producing documents.
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate II, Vridhachalam, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, by order dated 26.10.2015 passed in M.C.No.1 of 2012, partly allowed the petition filed by the appellant by granting a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to be payable to the appellant by the respondent, after deducting a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was already paid.
7. Assailing the said order, the appellant filed Crl.A.No.85 of 2015 seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas the respondent filed Crl.A.No.91 of 2015 seeking to set aside the order dated 26.10.2015 passed in M.C.No.1 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Vridhachalam.
8. The learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam, by judgment dated 2.6.2016, partly allowed Crl.A.No.85 of 2015 filed by the appellant, by enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.15,00,000/- from Rs.10,00,000/- and dismissed Crl.A.No.91 of 2015 filed by the respondent.
9. Assailing the said judgment, Crl.R.C.Nos.767 and 838 of 2017 have been filed by the respondent and Crl.R.C.No.1139 of 2016 has been filed by the appellant.
10. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent husband that without any evidence on record, solely based on the evidence of P.W.1, the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the respondent husband had committed domestic violence as alleged by the appellant and the compensation awarded is exorbitant, considering the fact that the respondent had already executed a settlement deed in favour of the appellant, settling a property worth Rs.36,00,000/-.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant wife contended that the Courts below erred in not considering the victimization she was subjected to by the respondent husband and that the appellant wife was forced to resign the government job and she was subjected to violence, which had spoiled her life.
12. I heard Mr. L. Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.R.C.Nos.767 and 838 of 2017 and the respondent in Crl.R.C.No.1139 of 2016 and Mr. C. Deivasigamani, learned counsel for the respondent in Crl.R.C.Nos.767 and 838 of 2017 and the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1139 of 2016 and perused the records.
13. The matrimonial relationship of the appel
