Jesima Banu Vs a.Shafi Alam — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2025)

Jesima Banu Vs a.Shafi Alam — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the Revision Petitioner; the Criminal Revision was dismissed and the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2019 (compensation reduced to Rs.1,00,000 and monthly rent to Rs.5,000) was confirmed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2019 is to be set aside and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram in D.V.A. No. 1 of 2016 dated 28.11.2019 restored.

Court's answer

The grounds raised in the Criminal Revision seeking restoration of the Judicial Magistrate's original order are unacceptable, given that maintenance had been ordered in the wife's maintenance case, the husband already pays Rs.5,000 monthly maintenance, and he must maintain his family consisting of his second wife and three children.

Ratio / Principle

The appellate court rightly reduced the compensation amount from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000 after taking note of the overall evidence on record.

Key takeaways

The monthly amount of Rs.10,000 ordered by the trial court was rightly reduced to Rs.5,000 considering the plight of the husband.ratio¶79
The point for consideration is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Revision Petitioner.ratio¶85
Although the trial court's order in D.V.A. No. 1 of 2016 dated 28.11.2019 is found proper, the quantum of compensation and the quantum of monthly maintenance to the wife fixed therein are found unreasonable considering the economic status of the husband (a self-employed photographer).ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Wife's Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C challenging the judgment dated 08.07.2021 of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in Crl.A. No. 132 of 2019, which modified the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram's order dated 28.11.2019 in D.V.A. No. 1 of 2016 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by reducing compensation from Rs.10,00,000 (secured by a charge on the Respondent-husband's Pollachi property) to Rs.1,00,000 and the monthly rent from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000, while the remaining trial-court directions (non-interference/protection, and return of 158.450 grams of jewels, a watch and Rs.30,000 cash) stood upheld. Taking into account that the Revision Petitioner resides separately, that the daughters have been maintained throughout by the Respondent out of his earnings as a self-employed photographer facing thin footfall in photo studios, that he already pays Rs.5,000 monthly maintenance under M.C. No. 23 of 2015 and maintains a family comprising his second wife and three children, the High Court held the appellate reductions properly balanced, answered the point for consideration in favour of the Respondent, dismissed the Criminal Revision, and confirmed the appellate judgment.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 08.07.2021 in C.A./Crl.A. No. 132 of 2019 of the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur, modifying the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram's order dated 28.11.2019 in D.V.A. No. 1 of 2016 by reducing the compensation from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000 and the monthly rent from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000; the Revision Petitioner sought to set aside this judgment.¶10
Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur · 08.07.2021
Prior proceeding
Wife filed D.V.A. No. 1 of 2016 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against her husband and three others before the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram.¶17
Prior proceeding
Trial court partly allowed D.V.A. No. 1 of 2016 on 28.11.2019, issuing directions including Rs.10,00,000 compensation secured by a charge on the Respondent's Pollachi property, non-interference/protection directions, Rs.10,000 monthly rent, and return of 158.450 grams of jewels, a watch and Rs.30,000 cash.¶38
Prior proceeding
Respondent/husband challenged the trial court order by filing Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2019.¶47
Prior proceeding
By judgment dated 08.07.2021 in C.A. No. 132 of 2019 the appellate court reduced the compensation from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000 and the monthly rent from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000.¶47
Prior proceeding
The appellate court recorded that the two minor children were in the custody of the first Respondent-husband and gave the Petitioner/wife visitation rights (referenced therein as order dated 08.06.2021).¶47
Prior proceeding
Per the Respondent's counter affidavit: questioning the triple talaq pronounced by him, the Petitioner filed O.S. No. 330 of 2015 before the Sub Court, Pollachi; stated to be pending.¶26
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed M.C. No. 23 of 2015 for maintenance; per counsel's submission the Respondent is paying Rs.5,000 per month maintenance under its direction.¶31
Prior proceeding
Petitioner lodged a criminal complaint (Crime No. 385 of 2015) for an offence under Section 294(b) IPC, in which the first Respondent regularly appears before Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi.¶31
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed G.W.O.P. No. 143 of 2017, stated to be pending (per the counter-affidavit narration).¶31
Prior proceeding
Respondent's counsel's contention: by G.W.O.P. No. 143 of 2019 before the Principal District Judge the Respondent obtained custody of the two children, with only visitation rights to the Revision Petitioner/wife.¶67