R.Senthil Kumar Vs Umavathy

Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and to set aside the judgment dated 08.06.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District partly allowing D.V.A. No. 01 of 2017 which was disposed of on 27.04.2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr. S. Arivazhagan For Respondent : Mr. K.R. Nishanth for Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/22

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶18

This Criminal Revision Case had been filed to set aside the judgment dated 08.06.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District whereby partially allowing the Appeal and interfering with the order dated 27.04.2019 passed in D.V.A No. 1 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur.

¶19

The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Revision Case, are as follows:-

¶20

2.1. As per the Domestic Violence Application No. 1 of 2017 filed by the Respondent herein, the marriage between her and the first Petitioner herein was solemnised on 02.11.2011 at Kumaravel Arulmigu Subramaniya Swamy Temple, Trichy in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, followed by a marriage reception on 06.11.2011 in Pannirendar Kalyana Mandapam. It was stated that at the time of marriage, as demanded by the Petitioners, the parents of the Respondent presented 30 sovereigns of gold jewels, Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, house hold articles and 3 sovereigns of gold jewels to the first Petitioner. After the marriage, the first Petitioner and the Respondent resided in the matrimonial home. The first Petitioner is dealing in license agency business https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

2/22

¶22

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶23

and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, in order to improve his business, the first Petitioner made the Respondent to part with her jewellery and purchased Tata Ace Van and Tata Indica Car and expanded his business. Even though the Respondent discharged her matrimonial obligations, the first Petitioner along with the other Petitioners subjected the Respondent to various forms of matrimonial cruelty. The first Petitioner demanded Rs.2,00,000/from the Respondent to expand his business further. The first Petitioner, under the influence of alcohol, caused physical assault to her. During the month of Aadi the Respondent was sent to her parents house but subsequently, she was not taken back to the matrimonial home, inspite of requests made by her. Therefore, the Respondent filed HMOP No. 34 of 2015 under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupur for restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, the Respondent also given a complaint before the local police against the Petitioners but no enquiry was conducted thereof, hence, she had filed the Domestic Violence Application praying to direct the first Petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance, to return the 27 sovereigns of gold jewels presented at the time of marriage, to return the house hold articles to her and for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered.

¶24

2.2. On notice, the first Petitioner filed a counter affidavit stating that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

3/22

¶26

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶27

the Petitioners never demanded any dowry, as alleged. The allegations made in the petition are exaggerated. After marriage, the Respondent parted with her jewels to her brother for his marriage, which took place, within a week of the marriage between the first Petitioner and Respondent. It was further stated that out of the wedlock, no children was born to the first Petitioner and the Respondent. It was also stated that due to the adamant attitude and character of the Respondent, the matrimonial life of the first Petitioner was ruined. It was further stated that the Respondent did not fulfil her obligations as a dutiful wife and she often quarreled with the Petitioners. The food in the matrimonial home was prepared only by the mother of the first Petitioner and the Respondent will go to the kitchen only for preparing coffee. When she went to her parents house by citing the Tamil month Aadi she refused to come back to the matrimonial home in spite of requests made. While so, she filed HMOP No. 34 of 2015 in which an order was obtained by her. The allegation that the father of the Respondent paid amount to purchase Tata Ace and Tata Indica Car are false and incorrect. The vehicles were purchased by the first Petitioner much before the marriage with the Respondent. The Respondent was treated well and there was no domestic violence unleashed against her, as alleged. Accordingly, the first Petitioner, on behalf of the other Petitioners, prayed for dismissal of the Domestic Violence Application. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

4/22

¶29

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶30

2.3. Before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, the Respondent examined herself as P.W-1 and filed five documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. On behalf of the Revision Petitioners herein, the first Petitioner-husband examined himself as R.W-1 but no document was marked. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that except the oral statement of the Respondent that jewels and cash was presented by her parents at the time of marriage, no other document was filed to prove the same. Further, the Respondent also did not file any document to show that the Tata Ace and Tata Indica vehicles were purchased out of the amount given by the father of the Respondent, as demanded by the Petitioners herein. Therefore, while rejecting the claim of the Respondent for return of jewels and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, directed the first Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance of the Respondent every month.

¶31

2.4. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2019 passed in D.V.A. No. 1 of 2017, the Respondent had filed Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2019. The Appellate Judge concluded that the Respondent filed photographs along with the Domestic Violence Application to show that jewels were presented to her at the time of marriage. But the said fact had not been disproved by the Revision Petitioners through any evidence. Further, in the counter affidavit, a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

5/22

¶33

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶34

vague denial had been made as to the presentation of jewels and household articles by the Revision Petitioners and the allegation with respect to presentation of jewels and house hold articles had not been specifically denied. Therefore, it was concluded that the Revision Petitioners are bound to return the 27 sovereigns of jewels and household articles to the Respondent. Accordingly, by the order dated 08.06.2021, the Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and directed the Revision Petitioners herein to return the 27 sovereigns of jewels as well as household articles presented by the parents of the Respondent at the time of marriage. However, the Appellate Court set aside the direction to the first Petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the Respondent every month.

¶35

2.5. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.06.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, Tiruppur District directing the Respondents therein/Petitioners herein to return the 27 sovereigns of gold jewels as well as the household articles to the Petitioner therein/Respondent herein presented during the period of marriage within one month from the date of the order, this Criminal Revision Case had been filed by the Respondents therein.

¶36

The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners invited the

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

6/22

¶39

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶40

attention of this Court to the contents of the Petition filed by the Respondent

¶41

before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur wherein it was stated as

¶42

follows:-

¶43

“kDjhuh; FLkg td; Kiwr; ; rl;lk; 20d; fPH

¶44

nfhUk; ghpfhuk

¶45

1-k; vjph;kDjhuh; Car Dealing kw;Wk; iybrd;!; Vb$d;rp bjhHpy; K:yk; khjk; U:/15,000/- rk;ghjpj;J tUfpwhh;/ kDjhuUf;fhd ,ilf;fhy. Ma[s;fhy $Ptdhk;rk; tH';Fk; jFjpiaa[k; czt[. cil ,Ug;gplk; nghd;w mog;gilahd TWfSf;F kDjhuiu guhkhpf;Fk; brytpidf; bfhLf;f ntz;Lk; kw;Wk; ,ilf;fhy $Ptdhk;rkhf khjk; U:/10,000/tH';fpl 1k; vjph;kDjhuUf;F cj;jutpLkhW nfhUfpd;whh;/

¶46

kDjhuh; Flk;g tdKiwr; ; rl;lk; 20(1)(C)d; fPH; nfhUk ghpfhuk

¶47

1)kDjhuUf;F kDjhuhpd; Flk;gj;jhh; tH';fpa kw;Wk; vjph;kDjhuUf;F tH';fpa tujl;riz eiffshd Muk; 6 gt[d;. lhyh; brapd; 5 gt[d;. KWf;Fr;brapd; 5 gt[d;. njhL. $pkpf;fp 1 gt[d;. nfhJikr; brapd; 2 gt[d;. bef;y!; 3 gt[d;. 1k; vjph;kDjhuUf;F 4 gt[d; brapd;. nkhjpuk; 1 gt[d;. 3/4 gt[d; nkhjpuk; Mf bkhj;jk; rtud; j';f eiffs;/

¶48

2)kDjhuupd; Milfs;

¶49

3)tPl;L cgnahfg; bghUl;fs;

¶50

Mfpatw;iw vjph;kDjhuh;fsplkpUe;J kPl;L. kDjhuhpd; trk; bfhLf;f cj;jutpLkhW kDjhuh; jhH;ika[ld; gpuhh;j;jpf;fpwhh;/”

¶51

Further, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

7/22

¶54

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶55

submitted that as per the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, the claim of the Petitioner in D.V.A.No.1 of 2017 was not proved by any documentary evidence. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners also submitted that as per her own averments, she had been separated from her husband during the year 2015. However, the D.V.A No. 1 of 2017 was filed two years thereafter and therefore, the Domestic Violence Application itself is not maintainable. The Respondent also filed H.M.O.P. No. 34 of 2015 for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was decreed in her favour, but she had not taken any further steps to execute the decree instead, she had filed D.V.A. No. 1 of 2017. Thus, the allegation that the Revision Petitioners refused to take her back to the matrimonial home is nothing but a falsehood when she herself had not chosen to execute the order passed in HMOP No. 34 of 2015 in her favour.

¶56

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners that the Respondent, who had filed D.V.A. No. 1 of 2017 is bound to prove her contentions through legally acceptable evidence. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, in the order had observed that, except her

¶57

oral evidence, there is no evidence regarding entrustment of jewels and Sreedhana articles to the husband or in-laws. The Respondent also did not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

8/22

¶59

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶60

produce any bill or receipts for purchase of the gold jewels or other Sreedhana articles from the shop. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, therefore, arrived at a conclusion that there is no evidence to show that the jewels were purchased or handed over to the Petitioners as per Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in Crl.A.No.64 of 2019, reversed the finding on the basis of photographs produced by the Respondent to conclude 27 sovereigns of jewels were presented to her by her parents. In the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in Crl.A.No.64 of 2019, it was observed as follows:

¶61

“I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both the parties. It is an admitted fact that the Respondent has not preferred Appeal against the Judicial Magistrate's order for monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. He has admitted his income and only chosen to challenge the order of maintenance passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. For the remaining relief that was declined by the Trial Court the Appellant has chosen to file this Appeal for return of 27 sovereigns of gold jewels and for return of household articles and for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Petitioner has not asked for return of Rs.2,00,000/- cash which is said to be paid during the time marriage. Therefore, we need not go into the payment of cash alleged to be made. We are concerned only with respect to household articles as well as the jewels. With respect to the household articles, the Respondent during his evidence has admitted that the household articles are still with him and he has bound to return the same. But he contended that he has right to live with the Petitioner, therefore it was not returned so far. Therefore, household articles are concerned, it is admitted that the same is available with the Respondent which is bound to be returned to the Petitioner as long as the Petitioner is not residing in the household. As far as the jewels are concerned, two photographs were filed on the side of the Petitioner to prove that jewels were presented during the time of marriage. The Respondent had also

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

9/22

¶64

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶65

admitted in his counter that jewels were presented to the Petitioner. However the same was taken by the Petitioner immediately after her marriage and the same was presented to her brother's marriage. The said fact has not been proved by the Respondent either through evidence or through documents. In the counter there is vague denial by the Respondents as to the jewels and during cross-examination he has admitted that the said fact has not been denied in specific by the Respondent. When the entrustment of jewels has been proved by the Petitioner, it is the burden cast upon the Respondent to prove that jewels were returned immediately after the marriage for the marriage of the Petitioner's brother. This Court finds that the Respondent had not proved the return of jewels to the Petitioner's brother immediately after the marriage. As the said fact has not been proved by the Respondent, this Court finds that the Respondent is bound to return the jewels as prayed for. The Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence of the Petitioner and the Respondents and negatived the claim of the Petitioner with respect to the jewels and household articles. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the Petitioner is entitled for return of 27 sovereigns of gold jewels as well as the household articles mentioned in the Petition from the Respondent and the first Respondent is bound to return the same within a period of one month. Hence, the point is answered accordingly.”

¶66

6. When the Respondent failed to prove her own case, the Principal

¶67

Sessions Judge, Tirupur is not right in directing the Revision Petitioners to return the so-called 27 sovereigns of gold jewels presented or entrusted to them at the time of marriage. In fact, R.W-1 in his evidence had stated that within one week of the marriage, the marriage of the brother of the Respondent was solemnised and the Respondent had entrusted all her jewels to her brother. When such a specific statement was made by the first Petitioner,

¶68

as R.W-1, the Respondent had not chosen to deny the same or produced any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶69

10/22

¶70

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶71

contra evidence. While so, the Appellate Judge, had erroneously shifted the burden of proof on the Revision Petitioners, instead the Respondent, who had come up with the Domestic Violence Application is bound to prove the same by legally acceptable evidence. Thus, it is submitted that the order dated 08.06.2021 passed in Crl.A. No. 64 of 2019 is perverse and it is liable to be set aside and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur has to be restored. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners prayed for allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

¶72

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/wife submitted

¶73

that the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in C.A.No.64 of 2019 had on appreciation of evidence found that the findings given by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, that the wife had not furnished document is perverse on the ground that the wife had furnished photographs taken during the marriage to show the entrustment of gold jewels. Further, in the counter affidavit of the first Petitioner, the entrustment of gold jewels pleaded by the Respondent had not been specifically denied by the Petitioners. Therefore, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, had rightly held that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, had not considered those facts and set aside the same. The judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, is a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

11/22

¶75

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶76

well-reasoned judgment which does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶77

The learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the first Revision Petitioner had not assailed the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, by which he was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the Respondent. However, he had assailed the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur directing to return the gold jewels and household articles. Further, in the course of the hearing in this Revision Case, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/husband had filed additional typed to show that the vehicles have been purchased in the year 1995, much prior to the marriage in the year 2011. When the Revision Petitioners did not file any appeal as against the order dated 27.04.2019 in D.V.A. No. 1 of 2017, those documents cannot be permitted to be filed at the revisional stage. Further, the learned Counsel for the Respondent pointed out that the additional typed set contains the RC book in the name of Thiru. Jayakumar, relating to the Car purchased from Maruti Udyog Ltd., bearing Registration No.TN-21-A-5689. Whereas in the Petition in D.V.A.No.1 of 2017, the wife had clearly stated that the gold jewels were misused by in-laws to purchase Tata ACE and Tata Indica Car. The Appellate Court, on considering the above facts, had rightly allowed the Appeal preferred by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

12/22

¶79

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶80

Respondent, over which interference of this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Respondent prayed for dismissal of this Criminal Revision Case.

¶81

Points for consideration:

¶82

Whether the judgment dated 08.06.2021 in C.A.No.64 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, is to be set aside and the order dated 27.04.2019 in D.V.A.No.1 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, is to be restored?

¶83

Heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners as well as

¶84

the learned Counsel for the Respondent. Perused the material records, including the Judgment dated 27.09.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2019, which is impugned in this Criminal Revision Case.

¶85

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners that the wife had preferred Domestic Violence Application in D.V.A. No. 1 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur, five years after getting decree in HMOP filed by her for restitution of conjugal

¶86

rights. The Petition under the Domestic Violence Act is barred by limitation as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶87

13/22

¶88

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶89

she had filed it five years after leaving the matrimonial home. Therefore, the Domestic Violence Application itself is not maintainable as it is hit by limitation.

¶90

It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners that in the Domestic Violence Application, the husband, as Respondent, along with his brother, parents, sister and her husband were impleaded, however, relief was sought for only against the first Petitionerhusband. The husband, as Respondent in the Domestic Violence Application, entered appearance and filed counter denying the claim of the Respondent in the Domestic Violence Application. The claim by the Respondent in the Domestic Violence Application is that the Sreedhana jewels are under the custody of the husband. A counter affidavit was filed whereby such an averment was specifically denied by him by claiming that the Respondent had taken away the jewels and gave it to her brother within a week of the marriage and the same had not been returned. The learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur, on consideration of the evidence adduced by both parties, dismissed the Petition regarding the reliefs claimed in the Domestic Violence Application, but only granted maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim for return of jewels and household https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶91

14/22

¶92

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶93

articles, the Respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2019. By Judgment dated 08.06.2021 the Appellate Judge, without any acceptable evidence on record, erroneously reversed the order of dismissal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I and granted the relief to the Respondent by directing the Revision Petitioners to return the 27 sovereigns of gold jewels as well as the household articles of the Respondent.

¶94

It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners that the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, had not considered the evidence adduced before the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Tiruppur in proper perspective. The Appellate Judge also did not consider the Provisions of Section 103 of The Evidence Act. As per Section 103 of The Evidence Act, it is for the Respondent to prove that 27 sovereigns of gold jewels were handed over to the Revision Petitioners soon after the marriage. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, in the order had observed that no document has been filed to show the purchase of the gold jewellery or handing over the jewels to the family of the husband. However, in the Appeal, the learned Principal Sessions Judge had observed that in the document marked before the learned Judicial Magistrate – I, Tiruppur viz., the photograph, the Respondent wife was seen wearing jewels. Also, the learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶95

15/22

¶96

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶97

Principal Sessions Judge observed that in the counter filed by the husband, he had only given a vague reply and he had not specifically stated that the jewelleries are not in the house of the Revision Petitioners. Also, the learned Judge had observed in the discussion of evidence that the first Revision Petitioner admitted in cross examination that the jewels and household articles are in his custody and he need not return the same to the wife as he is willing to live with her. Therefore, the learned Principal Sessions Judge had observed that 27 sovereigns of jewels and household articles are in the custody of the Revision Petitioners and directed them to return the same. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, in the Domestic Violence Case and the Judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in C.A.No. 64 of 2019, dated 08.06.2021, the learned Sessions Judge had relied on the evidence of the first Revision Petitioner/husband in his cross-examination. On perusal of the cross-examination, the first Revision Petitioner no where admitted that the jewelery and household articles are under his custody and he need not return the same as he is willing to live with her.

¶98

It is to be noted that the Respondent had preferred HMOP No. 34

¶99

of 2015 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. According to the Respondent, she was driven out of the matrimonial home by the Revision Petitioners, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶100

16/22

¶101

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶102

whereas the Revision Petitioners claim that the Respondent, on her own volition, left the matrimonial home. The first Petitioner, as R.W-1, in the cross-examination, admitted that the jewels and household articles were under his custody and also in the cross-examination, had claimed why should he return the gold jewelery and household articles when he is willing to live with the Respondent. It is on the basis of such admission of the first Revision Petitioner, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, had observed that the husband did not take back the wife in matrimonial home, but claimed that he is ready to live with her. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge directed that the Revision Petitioners have to return back the gold jewels presented to the Respondent at the time of marriage.

¶103

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners

¶104

that the Domestic Violence Application is not maintainable is found unacceptable as the Respondent had preferred the Domestic Violence Case after getting a decree in her favour in HMOP No. 34 of 2015 for restitution of conjugal rights. She had the benefit of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights whereas the husband was not willing to join her and having custody of the property belonging to the wife. The Petition is maintainable if it is filed within one year from the date on which a cause of action arise for filing it. In https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶105

17/22

¶106

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶107

fact, taking note of the cause of action for filing the Domestic Violence Application, it was entertained by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur. Therefore, the claim of the first Revision Petitioner-husband that such Petition had been filed belatedly and not maintainable cannot be accepted. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, dismissed the Petition only on the ground that the Respondent had not filed any document for having purchased the jewels or the household articles and therefore, granted maintenance as sought by her. If he had dismissed the entire Petition, then the claim of the Revision Petitioners that the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruppur, is as per the Provisions of the Domestic Violence Act can be accepted. He had allowed it in part by granting maintenance only to the Respondent. What is the cause of action for filing a petition differs from case to case and it is to be decided only based on the averments in the petition. In this case, the cause of action for the wife to file the Domestic Violence Application is, she was driven out of the matrimonial home by the Revision Petitioners herein and to protect her rights, she had approached the Court by filing HMOP No. 34 of 2015 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and after getting a decree thereof, she had filed Domestic Violence Application No.1 of 2017. Therefore, the contention of the Revision Petitioners that the Domestic Violence Application No. 1 of 2017 is not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶108

18/22

¶109

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶110

maintainable will not hold good in the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tiruppur as well as the learned Principal Sessions Judge had considered the contentions of the Revision Petitioners that the Domestic Violence Application is not maintainable and rejected their claim. In Revision, the claim of the first Revision Petitioner that the Judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in C.A. No. 64 of 2019 dated 08.06.2021 is to be set aside as he had not considered the evidence on record and the Provisions of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence of Act, 2005 is unacceptable. This Court as Revisional Court need not consider or analyse the evidence before the trial Court. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, had relied on the portion of the evidence of the husband, having admitted in the cross-examination that the gold jewels and household articles of wife are with him and proceeded to state as to why he should return it when he is willing to join the wife in the matrimonial home. Therefore, the learned Principal Sessions Judge had observed that when he had not joined the Respondent but only claimed that he was ready to join with her by retaining the custody of the jewels and household articles, he is bound to return them. Therefore, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, had therefore, rightly reversed the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissing the claim of the wife seeking return of her jewels and household https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶111

19/22

¶112

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶113

articles. The judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, is found proper and well-reasoned Judgment which does not warrant interference by this Court. The grounds raised in this Criminal Revision Case are found to be having no merits. Therefore, the contentions of the learned Counsel for Revision Petitioners is hereby rejected. The Criminal Revision Case filed by the Revision Petitioners, is therefore, liable only to be rejected.

¶114

In the light of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Revision Petitioners. The judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, dated 08.06.2021 in C.A.No.64 of 2019 dated 08.06.2021 is to be upheld.

¶115

In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur in C.A.No.64 of 2019 dated 08.06.2021 is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶116

26.03.2025

¶117

dh

¶118

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶119

20/22

¶120

Crl.R.C. No.976 of 2021

¶121

To