Gomathi v. Veerabagu

ORDER The petitioner herein has filed this Criminal Revision Case as against the impugned order of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Crl.A.No.12 of 2017 dated 20.10.2017 dismissing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil in M.C.No.16 of 2012 dated 26.09.2016 with regard to the relief No.1 granting protection order under Section 18 of the Act as against the respondents herein.

¶2The petitioner is the wife of the first respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent took place on 09.05.2010. Thereafter, on 03.02.2011, a male child was born. In the said circumstances, within a period of four months, he left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, there was some dispute regarding the demand of dowry and other cruelty. Hence, a complaint was laid before the jurisdictional police station and the same was registered in Crime No.20 of 2012. Thereafter, the first respondent filed the divorce petition before the jurisdictional Court. The petitioner herein has filed a petition in M.C.No. 16 of 2012 under the Domestic Violence Act.

3.To prove her claim, she examined herself and another witness P.W.2 and also exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The first respondent did not appear, but the learned trial Judge considering the evidence granted the following reliefs: ,Wjpahf(1) vjph;kDjhuh;fs; kDjhuuplk; $Ljy; tujl;riz Nfl;L vt;tpj njhe;juTk; nra;af; $lhJ vd;W Flk;g td;nfhLik jLg;Grl;lk; gphpT 18-gb ghJfhg;G cj;juT toq;fpAk;

(2) 1k; vjph;kDjhuu; kDjhuUf;F tho;f;if nghUSjtp njhifahf kDjhuh; NfhhpAs;s&.7000 kDjhf;fy; nra;j ehspypUe;J 2016 k; tUlk; nrg;lk;gh;

khjk;

tiuapyhd njhifapid ,d;wpypUe;J (26.09.2016) ,uz;L khj fhyj;jpw;Fs; kDjhuuplk; nrYj;j Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; 2016 k; Mz;L mf;Nlhgh; khjj;jpypUe;J nrYj;j Ntz;ba [Ptdhk;r njhifapid xt;nthU Mq;fpy khjKk; 5k; Njjpf;Fs; kDjhuu; trk; nrYj;j Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; Flk;g td;nfhLik jLg;Gr; rl;lk; gphpT 20 d;gb cj;juT gpwg;gpj;Jk;

(3) 1k; vjph;kDjhuu; kDjhuUf;F Nkw;gb cj;jutpd;gb

tho;f;if

nghUSjtp toq;fhky; ,Ue;J nghUshjhu CW tpistpj;J Flk;g td;Kiw ,iof;ff;$lhJ vd;W Nkw;gb rl;lk; gphpT 18d;fPo; ghJfhg;G cj;juT gpwg;gpj;Jk;

(4) vjph;kDjhuh;fs; kDjhuhplk; tpthfuj;J Nfl;L nfhLikg;gLj;jf; $lhJ vd;W ghJfhg;G cj;juT toq;fNtz;Lk;

vd;W

kDjhuh;

Nfl;Ls;s ghpfhuj;ijg; nghWj;J kDtpid js;Sgb nra;Jk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

(5) ,e;j cj;jutpd; efiy kDjhuUf;Fk; vjph;kDjhuh;fSf;Fk; ,ytrkhf toq;fTk; kw;Wk; khtl;l ghJfhg;G mYtyh; jpUney;Ntyp mth;fSf;F mDg;gpitf;fTk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ. Challenging the same, the statutory appeal was filed under the Domestic Violence Act before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.

4.The learned Appellate Judge considered the evidence and also the impugned order and dismissed the relief regarding Section 18 of the Act ie., restraining the respondent from demanding any dowry. The learned Appellate Judge relied the order of this Court and also the closure report of the jurisdictional police officer to be declined the salary. The learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence and also the document, gave a finding that there was no demand of dowry on the part of the respondents herein. He also placed the reliance on the order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13911 of 2016. The closure report of the respondent police was challenged by the wife before the jurisdictional Court. The jurisdictional Court also dismissed the said petition and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.248 of 2019. The same was also challenged by the respondents and this Court allowed the quash petition. This Court also finds that there was no merit in the allegation against the respondents that they demanded dowry. In view of the above situation, this Court finds no merit in the petition after considering the evidence available on record.

5.Admittedly, the petitioner preferred the complaint before the jurisdictional police stating that alleged demand of dowry. The jurisdictional police officer conducted the investigation and filed a negative report before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The said negative report itself specifically found that there was no demand of dowry. The said finding was challenged by the petitioner by filing a private complaint and the private complaint was taken on file in C.C.No.240 of 2019. The said private complaint was quashed by this Court with specific finding that there was no demand of dowry.

¶6In view of the above proceedings, the learned Appellate Judge has correctly dismissed the relief under Section 18 of the Act, ie, the claim of the petitioner praying injunction restraining the respondents from demanding dowry. Apart from that the parties are in a straigned relationship from 05.06.2011 onwards. In the said circumstances, the divorce proceedings were also initiated. The same also ended in favour of the husband. In view of the said fact also, this Court is inclined to confirm the finding of the learned Appellate Judge.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed. The Judgment passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Crl.A.No.12 of 2017 dated 20.10.2017 rejecting the relief under Section 18 of Domestic Violence Act is confirmed.

05.12.2023 NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sbn To

¶1The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil.

2.The I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J. sbn Crl.R.C.(MD).No.675 of 2019

05.12.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.12.2023 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.R.C.(MD).No.675 of 2019 Gomathi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Veerabaghu 2.Arumugam 3.Thiripurasundari 4.Jeyalakshmi 5.S.Veerabaghu @ Karthee 6.Thiripurasundari ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli passed in Crl.A.No.12 of 2017 dated 20.10.2017 dismissing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil in M.C.No.16 of 2012 dated 26.09.2016 with the relief No.1 granting protection order under Section 18 of the Act against the respondents herein that they should not harass the petitioner by demanding dowry and set aside the same and allow this revision petition. For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthik For Respondents : Mr.S.Kiruba Vijayanand for R1 to R6