IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Criminal Revision Case No. 976 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.13039 of 2021 ---

1. R. Senthil Kumar

2. S. Radha

3. R. Rajeshwari

4. R. Saravana Kumar

5. Sujatha .. Petitioners Versus Umavathy .. Respondent Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and to set aside the judgment dated 08.06.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District partly allowing D.V.A. No. 01 of 2017 which was disposed of on 27.04.2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.

For Petitioners : Mr. S. Arivazhagan For Respondent : Mr. K.R. Nishanth for Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case had been filed to set aside the judgment dated 08.06.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District whereby partially allowing the Appeal and interfering with the order dated 27.04.2019 passed in D.V.A No. 1 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision Case, are as follows:-

2.1. As per the Domestic Violence Application No. 1 of 2017 filed by the Respondent herein, the marriage between her and the first Petitioner herein was solemnised on 02.11.2011 at Kumaravel Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Trichy in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, followed by a marriage reception on 06.11.2011 in Pannirendar Kalyana Mandapam. It was stated that at the time of marriage, as demanded by the Petitioners, the parents of the Respondent presented 30 sovereigns of gold jewels, Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, house hold articles and 3 sovereigns of gold jewels to the first Petitioner. After the marriage, the first Petitioner and the Respondent resided in the matrimonial home. The first Petitioner is dealing in license agency business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, in order to improve his business, the first Petitioner made the Respondent to part with her jewellery and purchased Tata Ace Van and Tata Indica Car and expanded his business. Even though the Respondent discharged her matrimonial obligations, the first Petitioner along with the other Petitioners subjected the Respondent to various forms of matrimonial cruelty. The first Petitioner demanded Rs.2,00,000/- from the Respondent to expand his business further. The first Petitioner, under the influence of alcohol, caused physical assault to her. During the month of Aadi the Respondent was sent to her parents house but subsequently, she was not taken back to the matrimonial home, inspite of requests made by her. Therefore, the Respondent filed HMOP No. 34 of 2015 under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupur for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, the Respondent also given a complaint before the local police against the Petitioners but no enquiry was conducted thereof, hence, she had filed the Domestic Violence Application praying to direct the first Petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance, to return the 27 sovereigns of gold jewels presented at the time of marriage, to return the house hold articles to her and for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered.

2.2. On notice, the first Petitioner filed a counter affidavit stating that the Petitioners never demanded any dowry, as alleged. The allegations made in the petition are exaggerated. After marriage, the Respondent parted with her jewels to her brother for his marriage, which took place, within a week of the marriage between the first Petitioner and Respondent. It was further stated that out of the wedlock, no children was born to the first Petitioner and the Respondent. It was also stated that due to the adamant attitude and character o