Advocates:
['m/s giridhar', '', 'Y KAVITHA', 'MURUGESAN PARTY', '', 'DATES AND EVENTS FILED', 'ADDITIONAL TYPED SET- FILED', 'ADDL TYPED SET FILED- FILED', 'INDEX TO CITATIONS FILED', 'PH', 'AMICUS CURIAE VIDE COURT ORDER DT', 'M/S N MANOKARAN', '', 'ph', 'ADDI TYPED SET - FILED', 'ADDL TYPED SET- FILED', 'ADDL TYPE SET - FILED', 'COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED', 'ADDL TYPE SET- FILED', 'R']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on

:20.06.2022

Pronounced on

:27.06.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.A.No.638 of 2015

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.2173 to 2175 of 2016

B.Gokila

.. Appellant/ Respondent

/versus/

1.Murugesan.R

..Defacto Complainant

2.Principal Judge,

Principal Family Court,

Chennai 600 104.

..Respondent/Complainant

Prayer:

Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 341 of

Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 08.12.2014 in

I.A.No.2363 of 2014 in I.A.No.21 of 2002 in O.P.No.291 of 2001

by the 2^nd respondent Court and further proceedings pending

before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town at Chennai

in C.C.No.12 of 2015.

For Appellant :Mr.Y.Kavitha

For Respondents:Mr.N.Manokaran

(Amicus Curiae)

Mr.R.Murugesan,

Party-in-person

-------

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 341 of Cr.P.C.,

against the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court at

Chennai passed in I.A.No.2363/2014, dated 08/12/2014 wherein,

the information by way of sworn statement given by one

R.Murugesan alleging perjury, was treated as a complaint and

forwarded the material records to the 7^th

Metropolitan

Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, for further action.

2. The sum and substance of the information treated as

complaint is that, in the divorce petition in O.P.No.291/2001

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

(on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai) filed for

divorce by Murugesan on the ground of cruelty, Gokila/appellant

herein as respondent in the said original petition for herself

and on behalf of her minor child filed I.A.No.21/2002 seeking

Rs.5,000/- to her and Rs.3,000/- to her minor daughter as

maintenance for each and every hearing besides Rs.5000/- as

litigation expenses.

3. In her petition, she has specifically stated that she is

not working. She has no independent income. She is under the

care and protection of her parent at Sirumugai near Coimbatore.

For each and every hearing, she has to come from Coimbatore

accompanied by her father, mother or brother to attend the Court

at Chennai. To meet out her travelling expenses and ligation

expenses, she need interim maintenance.

4. Murugesan, the first respondent herein filed counter and

denied liability to pay maintenance. The Family Court after

considering the plea made by both sides, by its order dated

30/04/2002 observing that, “it is pertinent to note that the

petitioner (Gokila) is not working. She is solely depending upon

her parents and brother” ordered interim maintenance of

Rs.2,000/- p.m., to Gokila and Rs.1,000/ p.m to her minor

daughter Karishma.

5. Pursuant to this order, it appears that Murugesan has

paid a total sum of Rs.1,39,500/- as maintenance. Later, his

O.P.No.291/2001 was dismissed on 08/02/2005. However,

subsequently

Gokila

filed

the

divorce

petition

H.M.O.P.No.58/2008 before the 2^nd Additional Sub-ordinate Judge,

Coimbatore and the same was allowed. Thus, the marriage between

Gokila and Murugesan solemnized on 14/11/1996 was dissolved on

30/10/2009.

6. While so, Murgesan has filed a complaint under Section

340(1) of Cr.P.C r/w Section 193 of IPC alleging that Gokila has

committed perjury during the proceeding in I.A.No.21 of 2002 by

suppressing the fact that she was working as Primary Teacher in

Shree Saraswathi Vidyaah Mandheer School, Alangombu,

Mettupalayam from 02/06/2001 to 30/08/2006. Suppressing this

fact, she filed affidavit in her I.A.No.21/2002 that she is not

working and she has not owned immovable property and has no

source of income. Relying upon this false affidavit, the Court

passed an order dated 30/04/2002, thereby Gokila has committed

serious wrong to the Court for an offence punishable under

Section 193 of IPC.

7. This complaint dated 3^rd September,