IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 22.09.2023 DELIVERED ON : 08.03.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP CRL.RC.No.1267 of 2019 Fathima Mary : Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner Vs.

1. Pattenraj (Died)

2. Mr.Devaraj

3. Mrs.Rani : Respondents/Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.A.No.108/2015 dated 10.08.2018 confirmed the Order in M.C.No.22/2010 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and set aside the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Auxilia Peter For Respondents : Mr.H.Manojin Legal Aid Counsel ***

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.A.No.108/2015 dated 10.08.2018 confirmed the Order in M.C.No.22/2010 on the file of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is the wife. She filed the Petition seeking the relief under Domestic Violence Case before the Protection Officer. Based on the Petition filed by the wife, Protection Officer issued notice to the Respondent/husband and his parents. The notice returned with an endorsement as unserved. Therefore, the Protection Officer referred the matter to the Court of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. The learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet held enquiry. During enquiry, the first Respondent/husband died. Therefore, the Petitioner/wife had filed M.P.No.1740/2011 impleading the parents of her husband as Respondents 2 & 3. The wife as Petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and marked documents. The third Respondent/mother of the husband had examined herself as Respondent Witness-1. After due enquiry, the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate in her order dated 27.02.2015, dismissed the Domestic Violence case. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner in Domestic Violence Case had preferred the Criminal Appeal before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court confirmed the judgment of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the wife as Petitioner/Appellant.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the wife as Petitioner before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, had filed this Criminal Revision Petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the discussion of evidence by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate in the Judgment of Domestic Violence Case dated 27.02.2015. Also, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirmed the Judgment of the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate.

5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner that the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate has failed to consider the date on which the Domestic Violence Petition before the Protection Officer was preferred by the wife. Also, there are materials available before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate regarding the cruelty inflicted by the husband and his parents on the Petitioner/wife. The cruelty was suffered by the wife when she was in the joint household of the in laws. She was not permitted to talk with her parents. She was not permitted to move out of the house. She was not permitted to use mobile phones. She was not allowed to use pump and was forced to use well to draw water from the well for her use. She was not permitted to use other properties of the joint family during the period of her stay in in-laws house. She became pregnant twice. On both occasions, the husband along with the mother-in- law forced the wife/Peti