Quashed

K.Mohammed Rafi v. G.Hasina Sultana

Madras HC11 Apr 2017CRL RC/194/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition against a lower appellate court order awarding Rs.50,000 compensation under the Domestic Violence Act. Finding the lower court's order perverse and unsupported by evidence of mental torture or existing domestic relationship post-remarriage, the revision was allowed and the compensation order quashed.

What did the court decide?

The order of the lower appellate Court awarding Rs.50,000 compensation under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act is set aside.

K.Mohammed Rafi Vs G.Hasina Sultana — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.04.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

Criminal R.C. No.194 of 2014 and

¶6

M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶7

K.Mohammed Rafi 2. Khypeer 3. Wahida ... Petitioners/Respondents Versus G.Hasina Sultana ... Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 22.10.2013 made in C.A.No.300 of 2012 on the file of First Additional District Court, Coimbatore in reversing the judgment dated 13.09.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore in D.V.A.No.1 of 2012. For Petitioners : Mr.J.Pothiraj For Respondent : Mr.S.Arokiaraj, Legal Aid Counsel ORDER

¶8

This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment dated 22.10.2013 made in C.A.No.300 of 2012 on the file of First Additional District Court, Coimbatore in reversing the judgment dated 13.09.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.8, Coimbatore in D.V.A.No.1 of 2012, awarding the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent.

¶9

The respondent herein filed an application seeking various relief under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in D.V.A.No.1 of 2012, on the file of the learned Judicial Magaistrate No.8, Coimbatore. The trial Court dismissed the application/compliant filed by the

¶10

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

¶11

respondent herein. Challenging the same, the respondent filed an appeal in C.A.No.300 of 2012 on the file of First Additional District Court, Coimbatore. The Appellate Court ordered a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed.

¶12

The case of the respondent/complainant is as follows:

¶13

The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent took place on 21.04.2008. At the time of marriage, a sum of Rs.25,000/- cash and 23 sovereigns of gold jewellery was given to the petitioners' family by the parents of the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners' family demanded dowry and harassed the respondent and also forced her for abortion. Thereafter, due to the same the respondent left her matrimonial house and filed a complaint against the petitioners in Pithanur Police Station which was transferred to All Women Police Station, Mettur. In the above circumstances, the respondent filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The application was contested by the petitioners and denyied the allegations, and contested that on 08.02.2009 itself, 1^st petitioner divorced the respondent by trible Talaq, and petitioners also denied the fact of demanding dowry.

¶14

In order to prove the case, the respondent herein has been examined hereby as P.W.1, a Doctor has been examined as P.W.2 and another witness as P.W.3, she has also filed 22 exhibits. On the side of the petitioners herein three witness were examined and on their side they marked 11 exhibits.

¶15

Considering all the materials available on record, the trial Court dismissed the complaint holding that the respondent failed to prove any domestic violence against the petitioners. Challenging the same, the respondent filed an appeal and the lower Appellate Court held that suspecting fidelity of the respondent, the petitioners have caused some harassment, and suspecting the fidelity would amount to domestic violence, and also held that after divorce, both the 1^st petitioner and respondent have remarried and they are living separately with their spouses and there is no domestic relationship between them. For the domestic violence caused to the respondent, the petitioners were directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. Now challenging the same, the Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶16

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

¶17

Even though notice was served on the respondent, none appeared on her behalf and therefore, as per the directions of this Court, Mr.S.Arokiaraj, learned counsel was appointed on behalf of the respondent as a legal aid counsel.

¶18

Heard Mr.J.Pothiraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr.S.Arokiaraj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶19

It is the specific case that the respondent/complainant, that after marrying the first petitioner suspecting her fidelity 1^st petitioner has harasses her, but the above allegations made against the 1^st petitioner not been proved by the respondent. Even the allegation of sending her out of the matrimonial home, also not proved by the respondent. Apartment from that there is no evidence for demand of dowry. A Criminal case was filed by the respondent against the petitioners herein under Section 498(A) and 506 (ii) IPC, which is still pending regarding the alleged dowry demand.

¶20

Apart from that, the complaint has been filed after a long delay of two years. It is also creates a doubt on the respondent's case, considering all those materials, trial Court dismissed the petitioner complainant. The Lower Appellate Court has held that for suspecting the fidelity of the respondent the 1^st petitioner has harassed the respondent but there is no material available on record to prove the same. Even forced abortion also has not been proved by medical evidence. After holding that there is no domestic relationship between the parties and the respondent and the 1^st petitioner, subsequent to the divorce, had remarried, the lower appellate Court mechanically ordered compensation of Rs.50,000/- without any material, under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence. The compensation can be ordered only if it is proved that the respondent was subjected to mental torture and stress caused by the 1^st petitioner. In the absence of such evidence, the lower appellate Court ought not to have ordered compensation. In the above circumstances, the order of lower appellate Court below is perverse and without any evidence. Hence, it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the lower appellate Court is set aside.

¶21

In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶22

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

¶23

While parting with the case, I appreciate the services rendered by Mr.S.Arokiaraj, Legal Aid Counsel, who appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority attached to this Court, is directed to pay necessary renumeration.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar
jv
To
1. The First Additional District Court,
Coimbatore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.8,
Coimbatore.
3. Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Coimbatore.
4. The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority
High Court Buildings,
Chennai 600 104.
+1cc to Mr.J.Pothiraj, Advocate, S.R.No.21941
+1cc to Mr.S.Arokiaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.22061

¶28

Criminal R.C. No.194 of 2014

¶29

VG II(CO) CA(03/05/2017)

¶30

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

K.Mohammed Rafi v. G.Hasina Sultana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Mohammed Rafi v. G.Hasina Sultana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Lakshmi (F) 46 Vs Inspector of Police

M/S.Sri Renga Group of Vs State Rep by the

E.Kandasamy, A45YRS, Vs S.S.Eswara Moorthi

C.Paulraj, Aged 43 Years Vs the State Rep.by

The Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Vs Mr.Mukanchand Bothra

R.Selvaraju, Aged 50 Years, Vs State Rep. by