BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22/02/2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.553 of 2011
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011
V.Krishnaveni ... Petitioner/Complainant
Vs.
1.V.Rajkumar
2.A.Gopalakrishnan ... Respondents/Respondents
Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C praying
to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.V, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.120 of 2010, dated 15.06.2010, confirmed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai in
C.A.No.57 of 2010 dated 07.03.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to
permit the petitioner to reside in the shared household situated at No.6,
Nagalingampillai Street, Thiruchuli Road, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.
!For Petitioners ... P.Senthurpandian
(No appearance)
^For Respondent ... Mr.Babu Rajendran
:ORDER
There is no representation for the petitioner. It is not the first time
the revision petitioner has left the matter without representation. As such,
this court deems it appropriate to pass an order after going through the records
and after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the respondent.
2.The revision petitioner (V.Krishnaveni) is the mother of Rajkumar, the
first respondent herein.
A.Gopalakrishnan, the 2nd respondent is the father-in-law of Rajkumar.
The revision petitioner is a widow.
Claiming that she was
living in the residential house bearing door No.6, Nagalingam Pillai Street,
Thiruchuli Road, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District which was purchased by her
husband in 1991; that her husband died on 22.02.2008 and that the first
respondent, who got the property by virtue of a gift deed executed by her
husband failed to maintain the revision petitioner
and on the other hand, has
driven her out of the said house, preferred a complaint with the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Aruppukottai to give her police protection to stay in
the above said house.
Of course after the failure on the part of the police to
take action on her complaint, Crl.O.P(MD)No.8835 of 2009 came to be filed and
this court by order dated 20.10.2009 directed the police to take necessary
action pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner dated 11.08.2009.
As she
could not enter the said house and reside therein even thereafter she preferred
a complaint against the first respondent, as if he had committed an offence of
domestic violence at the instigation of the 2nd respondent, who is none other
than the father-in-law of the first respondent.
3.Based on the above mentioned allegation, the revision petitioner filed a
petition under sections 18, 19 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act 2005 for the following reliefs:-
(i)Protection order under section 18 of the said Act, prohibiting the
respondent No.1 and 2 from committing any act of domestic violence on the
revision petitioner and prohibiting the respondent No.1 from alienating the
property bearing door No.6 Nagalingam Pillai Street, Thiruchuli Road,
Arupukkottai, Virudhunagar District, which the petitioner claims to be a shared
household;
(ii)Restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from dispossessing or in any other
manner disturbing the possession of the petitioner of the above said shared
household at bearing door No.6, Nagalingam Pillai Street, Thiruchuli Road,
Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District after she would begin her stay in the said
shared house and for giving protection to her through police; and
(iii)For an interim direction, directing the first respondent to permit
the revision petitioner to reside in the said house.
4.The said petition, taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.V, Madurai as Cr.M.P.No.120 of 2010, was resisted by the first respondent on
the ground that the said court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint. On merits also, the said petition was resisted. The learned Judicial
Magistrate, after hearing, passed an order on 16.06.2010 dismissing the said
petition.
5.As against the said order, the revision petitioner filed an appeal
before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.57 of 2010 which came to be disposed of by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai by
judgment dated 07.03.2011. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track
Court No.1, Madurai, upon hearing the appeal, concurred with the findings of the
trial court that the revision petitioner had not made out any prima facie case
for any of the reliefs sought for under sections 18, 19 and 23 of the protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
6.The learned appellate Judge has adverted to
the transactions that took
place subsequent to the death of the husband of the revision petitioner and also
referred to the fact that the revision petitioner chose to reside with her first
son at Madurai, who got a sum of Rs.17,25,000/- from the first respondent for
not claiming any right in the property mentioned above and that the said
property had been never a house shared by the petitioner and the first
respondent.
Accordingly, the learned appellate Judge dismissed the appeal by
judgment dated 07.03.2011 which is sought to be impugned in the present criminal
revision case.
7.Upon perusing the records, this court does not find any defect or
infirmity in the said order passed by the learned appellate Judge warranting
interference by this court. There is no merit in the criminal revision case and
the same deserves to be dismissed.
8.Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
er
To,
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Madurai.
2.The Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.1,
Madurai.
