IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.R.C.No.430 of 2016

and

Crl.M.P.No.2860 of 2016

A.D.Velayudham

...Petitioner/1^st Respondent

Versus

M.Malathi

...Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401

of Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.238/2015

dated 26.11.2015 by the learned XVI Additional City Civil Court,

Chennai against C.C.No.3472 of 2011, X Metropolitan Magistrate,

Egmore, Chennai – 8.

For Petitioner :

Mr.T.Saravanan,

Legal Aid Counsel

For Respondent :

Mrs.S.Priyadharshini

Legal Aid Counsel

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision is filed to set aside the judgment

made in Crl.A.No.238 of 2015 dated 26.11.2015 by the learned XVI

Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, against the order in

C.C.No.3472 of 2011 dated 14.07.2014 by the learned X

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2.The petitioner is the respondent in a Domestic Violence

complaint filed by the respondent in C.C.No.3472 of 2011. The

respondent had lodged a complaint to the Protection Officer on

01.06.2011. In the complaint she had stated that her father had

given an advertisement for alliance in the Hindu and on seeing

the same, the petitioner's mother contacted her and thereafter

she had persisted and pressurized to marry the petitioner.

3.The petitioner is the Doctor who lost his wife in a train

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

accident and he is with a child. Taking pity on the child, she

had sacrificed her life and agreed to the parents to be the

second wife of the petitioner. During the marriage customary

sreedhana articles were presented. After the marriage, the

respondent was residing along with the petitioner, her mother-

in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law in Sakthi Nagar, Porur

along with Master Surya, son born to the petitioner and his

deceased wife Dr.V.Sumathy.

4.The marriage was solemnized on 29.04.2007 thereafter on

01.06.2007 she was forcefully sent out from the matrimonial home

under the pretext of Aadi month and later she was not allowed

into the house. The respondent gone along with her father and

even attended the house warming function at Nellore. Later

giving one reason or other she was not allowed into the

matrimonial home. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint.

5.The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent

after the marriage lived with the petitioner only for a short

period of one month. She insisted the petitioner to leave his

parents alone and have a nucleus family. The petitioner's

mother is a cancer patient and father is the heart patient.

Further she was too possessive and not allowing to even mingle

with the family members and to be happy with his son Master

Surya. The respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home,

for which the petitioner initially filed HMOP.No.131 of 2007 for

restitution of conjugal rights on 19.06.2007 and the same was

dismissed for default. Thereafter, HMOP.No.99 of 2008 was filed

seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. Coming to know about

the filing of this divorce petition, as a counter blast the

respondent filed HMOP.No.149 of 2008 for restitution of conjugal

rights. The Family Court by common judgment dated 28.02.2011 in

HMOP.No.99 and 149 of 2008 dismissed the divorce petition of the

petitioner and allowed the restitution of conjugal rights filed

by the respondent. Thereafter, she had not taken any steps to

join the family.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted

that on the contrary she had lodged a complaint to the

Protection Officer on 01.06.2011. In the complaint, she had

arrayed her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and

brother-in-law as respondents R2 to R5. R4 Sister-in-law was

married earlier. The trial Court viz., X Metropolitan

Magistrate, Egmor