COMMON ORDER

K.Ramkumar and T.Sangeetha got married on 20.01.2016. Their relationship came under strain. Sangeetha filed D.V.C.No.120 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli seeking various reliefs. She examined herself as P.W.1. The Social Protection Officer was examined as P.W.2. Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. Ramkumar examined himself as R.W.1 and marked Exs.R1 to R15. The learned Judicial Magistrate / Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli vide order dated 11.03.2022 allowed D.V.C.No.120 of 2016 and directed Ramkumar to return the jewellery and sridhana articles belonging to the wife. That apart, compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-

was also ordered. Questioning the order dated 11.03.2022, Ramkumar filed Crl.A.No.30 of 2022 before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli. The appeal was partly allowed on 23.03.2023. The trial Court's order was modified in the following terms:

“The appellant is directed to return the gold jewels and Sridhana properties of the respondent within 15 days from the date of order in the presence of protection officer, Tiruchirappalli (domestic violence). When the jewels listed the Ex.P4 list of jewels and the jewels wore by respondent shall be taken into account. If the appellant failed to comply the order, it shall be executed as directed by the trial Court. The appellant is directed to pay cost of this petition Rs.5,000/- to the respondent. Compensation for Rs.3,00,000/- is concerned trial Court order is set aside.”

Challenging the same, both Sangeetha as well as Ramkumar filed these civil revision petitions.

2.After hearing the learned counsel on either side, I am satisfied that the impugned order does not call for interference. The primary issue that has arisen is whether Ramkumar is obliged to return 40 ½ sovereigns of gold to his wife.

3.The Courts below have gone primarily by the pleadings set out in the counter filed by Ramkumar. Ramkumar virtually appears to have admitted the case of Sangeetha. That is why, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

4.It is seen that Ramkumar filed H.M.O.P.No.248 of 2017 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli seeking dissolution of his marriage. According to Ramkumar, Sangeetha has been suffering from some mental issues. It is Ramkumar who has applied for divorce. Sangettha has not sought the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. In these circumstances, the first appellate Court rightly set aside the order for payment of compensation.

5.The Family Court, Tiruchirappalli is directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.248 of 2017 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.With this direction to the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.09.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ias To:

1.The III Additional District and Sessions Court, Trichirappalli.

2.The Additional Mahila Court, Trichirappalli.

Copy to:

The Family Court, Tiruchirappalli G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

ias

09.09.2024