Dismissed¶29

Muralidharan v. Anusuya

Madras HC25 Mar 2026CRL OP/5379/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 311 Cr.P.C.; recall witness P.W.2; denial of cross-examination opportunity; Section 528 BNSS; Domestic Violence Act; Sections 31 and 32 (execution/complaint); ex parte maintenance Rs. 25,000/- per month; deposit of 50% of maintenance amount; Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level) Tiruvannamalai; C.C.No.39 of 2021; Crl.M.P.No.831 of 2025; CRL OP No. 5379 of 2026; Madras High Court; M. Nirmal Kumar, J.; decision date 25-03-2026; petitioner Muralidharan; respondent Anusuya; counsel A. Prabhakaran; belated application without sufficient cause; protraction of proceedings; non-compliance with maintenance order; petition dismissed and trial Court order confirmed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner had been afforded adequate opportunities to cross-examine P.W.2 but failed to do so. ¶28

Muralidharan Vs Anusuya — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.831 of 2025 in C.C.No.39 of 2021 (dismissal of the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.2 for cross-examination) should be set aside.

¶21

Court's answer

The petitioner had been afforded adequate opportunities to cross-examine P.W.2 but failed to do so.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

The petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed belatedly without sufficient cause.

¶28

Key takeaways

The petitioner's conduct indicates an attempt to protract the proceedings, particularly in the light of his non-compliance with the maintenance order.ratio¶28
There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the recall application; accordingly the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the trial Court's order confirmed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Nirmal Kumar, J.), by order dated 25-03-2026, dismissed CRL OP No. 5379 of 2026 filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., thereby confirming the order dated 12.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.831 of 2025 in C.C.No.39 of 2021 by the Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level), Tiruvannamalai, dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall P.W.2 for cross-examination. The proceedings arose from the respondent's complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, on which the trial Court had granted the respondent ex parte maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month; execution proceedings and a separate complaint under Sections 31 and 32 of the Act followed. The Court found the petitioner had been afforded adequate opportunities to cross-examine P.W.2, that the recall application was belated and without sufficient cause, and that his conduct indicated an attempt to protract the proceedings, particularly in the light of non-compliance with the maintenance order; it therefore found no infirmity or illegality in the trial Court's order.

¶1

CRL OP No. 5379 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 5379 of 2026

Muralidharan

..Petitioner(s)

Anusuya

..Respondent(s)

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., to setaside the order dated 12.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.831 of 2025 in C.C.No.39 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level) Tiruvannamalai.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.A.Prabhakaran

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 12.01.2025 made in Crl.M.P.No.831 of 2025 in C.C.No.39 of 2021

¶15

on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level) Tiruvannamalai.

¶16

The respondent herein filed a complaint under the Domestic

¶17

Violence Act against the petitioner, which was later transferred and renumbered. The trial Court passed an ex parte order granting maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month along with other reliefs. The petitioner’s attempt to set

¶18

Page1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

CRL OP No. 5379 of 2026

¶21

aside the ex parte order was dismissed, including subsequent restoration and delay condonation petitions. Meanwhile, execution proceedings were initiated by the respondent and a separate complaint under Sections 31 and 32 of the Act was taken on file. The petitioner’s revision before the High Court was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal, leading to further appellate proceedings, including a direction to deposit 50% of the maintenance amount. During execution, the respondent examined witnesses, but the petitioner failed to crossexamine one of them (P.W.2). His application to recall the witnes under Section 311 Cr.P.C., was dmissed by the trail Court on the ground that it was filed only to delay proceedings and without complying with maintenance orders. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the recall petition, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside the same.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to recall P.W.2 for cross-examination. It was contended that cross examination is a valuable right and denial of the same causes serious prejudice to the petitioner. The failure to cross-examine P.W.2 was not wilful but due to unavoidable circumstances. Hence, one more opportunity ought to have been granted in the interest of justice.

¶23

__________ Page2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

CRL OP No. 5379 of 2026

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶27

materials available on record.

¶28

On perusal of the records, this Court finds that the petitioner had been afforded adequate opportunities to cross-examine P.W.2 but failed to do so. The petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., appears to have been filed belatedly without sufficient cause. Further, the conduct of the petitioner indicates an attempt to protract the proceedings, particularly in the light of non-compliance with the maintenance order. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.

¶29

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed by confirming the order dated 2.01.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.831 of 2025 in C.C.No.39 of 2021 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level) Tiruvannamalai.

¶30

25-03-2026

¶31

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶32

VKR

¶33

¶34

1.The Additional Mahila Court (Judicial Magistrate Level) Tiruvannamalai.

¶35

__________ Page3 of 4

¶36