CRL.RC(MD).No. 100 of 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 03.02.2021

Pronounced on : 11.02.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

CRL.RC(MD).No. 100 of 2017

Abirami

: Petitioner / Respondent

Vs.

1.Manimaran

2.Balasubramani

3.Guruvammal

: Respondents / Appellants

PRAYER:- Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401

Cr.P.C., against the order passed in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2015,

dated 17.03.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Virudhunagar.

For petitioner

: Mr.R. Thangapandian

For respondents

: Mr. G. Marimuthu

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the

Judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2015, dated 17.03.2016

on the file of the file of the Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Virudhunagar, reversing the orders passed by the Court of the

Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai in M.C.No.39 of 2013, dated

10.07.2015 granting the reliefs under Sections 20 and 22 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. The petitioner wife, had invoked the provisions of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is not in

dispute that the first respondent is the husband; the second

respondent is the father-in-law and the third respondent is the

mother-in-law of the petitioner.

It is also not in dispute that

marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was

solemnized on 12.11.2010 that the petitioner's family had given 5

sovereigns of jewels, a cash of Rs.10,000/- and household articles

at the time of marriage and that subsequently, misunderstanding

arose between the parties and they are living separately. It is

also not in dispute that the first respondent has filed a petition

in HMOP.No. 98 of 2013 seeking divorce against the petitioner on the

file of the Sub Court, Aruppukkottai and subsequently he had

withdrawn the said case and that the petitioner, alleging domestic

violence, has initiated the proceedings claiming the reliefs under

Sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005, now under consideration.

3. It is evident from the records that the petitioner as

well as the first respondent are blaming each other by raising

1/5

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

CRL.RC(MD).No. 100 of 2017

allegations and counter-allegations. The petitioner has narrated

many incidents and events with which domestic violence was allegedly

committed against her. The respondents have specifically disputed

the same. The learned Magistrate upon considering the evidence both

oral and documentary has passed an order directing the respondents

to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation under Section 22

of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also

to pay Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance from the date of petition

under Section 20 of the said Act and further directed the

respondents to pay the arrears within a period of three months.

Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein have preferred

the appeal in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2015 on the file of the

Additional District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar and the

Appellate Court after reappreciating the evidence has come to the

conclusion that the alleged commission of domestic Violence

against the petitioner was not proved and thereby allowed the appeal

setting aside the order passed in M.C.No.39 of 2013 by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai and consequently, dismissed the

petitioner's case. Not satisfied with the Judgment of the

Appellate Court, the petitioner / wife has come forward with the

present revision.

4. Whether the Judgment of the Appellate Court in

dismissing the case filed under Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 is liable to be set