BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21535 of 2025

Raghumathul Rajathi ...Petitioner/Respondent/Complainant

Vs.

Sahul Hameed ...Respondent/Petitioner/Complainant Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the records relating to the order dated 11.09.2025 made in Cr.R.C.No.7 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, and set aside the order dated 28.09.2021 made in Crl.M.P.No.109 of 2021 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Sivagangai and set aside the

same.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff

For M/s. Ajmal Associates

For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the

wife/complainant, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court,

assailing the revisional order dated 11.09.2025 passed in Cr.R.C.No. 7 of 2022, whereby the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, set aside the well-reasoned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate directing return of 6 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

2. The petitioner contends that the impugned revisional order is legally unsustainable, suffers from non-application of mind, and amounts to a mechanical remand, nullifying a final adjudication already rendered after trial under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Case of the petitioner:

3. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised as per Muslim customs and rituals. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was gifted gold jewellery and cash. According to the petitioner, she returned to her parental home with 19 sovereigns of gold jewellery, while the remaining 6 sovereigns of gold jewellery and a sum of Rs.30,000/- continued to remain in the custody of the respondent. After dissolution of marriage, the respondent failed to return the said jewellery and cash, compelling the petitioner to initiate proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Crl.M.P.No.109 of 2021.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the pleadings, sworn statement, and materials placed on record, allowed the petition on 28.09.2021, directing the respondent to return 6 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner.

Gist of the Impugned Order:

5. Aggrieved by the Magistrate’s order, the respondent/husband preferred Cr.R.C.No.7 of 2022 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. By order dated 11.09.2025, the revisional Court allowed the revision, set aside the Magistrate’s order, and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal, observing inter alia that no documentary evidence had been produced to prove the giving of jewellery and cash; and Muslim men do not ordinarily wear gold ornaments. The revisional Court further stated that the remand was ordered “based on the request of both counsel”.

Grounds for setting aside the revisional order:

6. The petitioner assails the impugned revisional order on the following substantial grounds:

(i) The revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering a remand without recording any perversity or illegality in the Magistrate’s findings.

(ii) The alleged “consent remand” does not absolve the revisional Court of its duty to independently apply its judicial mind.

(iii) The Magistrate had already adjudicated the matter after trial, permitting remand merely to enable further evidence amounts to filling up lacunae, which is impermissible in revisional jurisdiction.

(iv) The observation that “Muslim men do not wear gold” is wholly irrelevant to the issue of entrustment and retention of a woman’s jewellery and reflects a clear misdirection in law.

(v) The question whether 6 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs.

30,000/- were retained by the re