Dismissed¶¶37

G.Ramamurthy v. R.Amsaveni Alias Amutha

Madras HC10 Mar 2026CRL RC/2200/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (Justice C.Kumarappan, 10-03-2026) dismissed CRL. R.C No. 2200 of 2025, a revision under Sections 438 and 442 BNSS 2023 against the order dated 12.06.2025 in M.C.No.14 of 2022 of the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai. Held: scope of revision limited; no perversity; petitioner's fabrication allegations unsupported (vague denial only, no documents or witnesses); reply Ex.P11 from petitioner's employer showing he nominated the respondent as his wife in service records treated as conclusive that the marriage-registration/Aadhaar documents were not fabricated; connected Crl.M.P.No.20185 of 2025 closed.

What did the court decide?

None. The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed and the connected Crl.M.P.No.20185 of 2025 was closed. ¶¶37

G.Ramamurthy Vs R.Amsaveni Alias Amutha — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed and the connected Crl.M.P.No.20185 of 2025 was closed.

¶¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to set aside the order made in M.C.No.14 of 2022 dated 12.06.2025 (III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai) should be allowed. +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

The scope of revision is very limited; unless there is perversity in the findings, the question of interfering with the order of the Trial Court does not arise.

¶¶25

Ratio / Principle

On the plea of perversity/fabrication, the petitioner advanced no specific defence except a vague denial in the counter statement, produced no document and examined no witnesses; mere pleadings in the counter statement cannot be equated with proof.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

Though the marriage registration certificate, the respondent's Aadhaar card and the Aadhaar card of the respondent's son were contended to be fabricated, when viewed along with the reply Ex.P11 received from the department where the petitioner worked, this Court holds that those documents cannot be termed fabricated.ratio¶¶36
Harmoniously reading the order of the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, this Court finds no error and, despite the counsel's best efforts, no ground to deviate from the findings rendered by the Trial Court.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (C.Kumarappan, J.), CRL. R.C No. 2200 of 2025 with Crl.M.P.No.20185 of 2025, decided 10-03-2026: Criminal revision filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by G.Ramamurthy seeking to set aside the order dated 12.06.2025 in M.C.No.14 of 2022 of the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai (respondent R.Amsaveni @ Amutha) — DISMISSED. The Court held the scope of revision to be very limited, interference arising only where findings are perverse. The petitioner's sole defence was a vague denial in his counter statement: he produced no document and examined no witness to disprove the Trial Court's materials (photographs, marriage registration certificate, Aadhaar card), and mere pleadings cannot be equated with proof. The Trial Court had relied on reply Ex.P11 from the petitioner's employer recording that the petitioner himself had nominated the respondent as his wife in his service records; viewed alongside that reply, the contested documents cannot be termed fabricated. Harmoniously reading the Trial Court's order, the Court found no error and no ground to deviate from its findings; consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.20185 of 2025 was closed.

¶1

CRL RC No. 2200 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

CRL. R.C No. 2200 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.20185 of 2025

G.Ramamurthy

..Petitioner

R.Amsaveni @ Amutha

..Respondent

Prayer: This Criminal Revision petition is filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order made in M.C.No.14 of 2022 dated 12.06.2025 on the file of the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

¶13

For Petitioner: Mr.R.Rajendran for M/s.Dhineshkumar Associates For Respondent: No appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order made in

¶16

M.C.No.14 of 2022 dated 12.06.2025 on the file of the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶18

__________ Page1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

CRL RC No. 2200 of 2025

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended

¶22

that the respondent is not his wife and that even according to the ration card – annexed along with the typed set, which was issued for the period 1988 2003, there is no reference to the name of this petitioner as the husband. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the M.C. case has been filed by the respondent herein only upon the instigation of the ’ petitioner s brother-in-law, as the said brother-in-law had acquaintance with the respondent.

¶23

It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was married only once, to Radha and that there is no nexus between himself and the respondent. However, the III Additional Principal Judge, Chennai without properly considering the material aspects, relied upon the photographs, marriage registration certificate and the Aadhaar card of the petitioner, erroneously passed order. According to the petitioner, those documents are fabricated and hence, he prayed to allow the revision petition.

¶24

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made.

¶25

It is pertinent to mention that the scope of revision is very limited.

¶26

Unless there is perversity in the findings, the question of interfering with the

¶27

Page2 of 5

¶28

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

¶29

CRL RC No. 2200 of 2025

¶30

order of the Trial Court does not arise. In the present case, with regard to perversity, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents relied upon by the Trial Court are fabricated. However, while considering the defence put forth by the petitioner, there is no specific defence except his vague denial in the counter statement. On perusal of the list of documents, the petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate his case, nor he has examined any witnesses to demonstrate that the documents relied upon by the respondent are false. Mere pleadings in the counter statement cannot be equated with that of the proof.

¶31

While looking at the impugned order, the learned III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai relied upon the reply Ex.P11 received from the employer of the petitioner. In the said document, it is shown that the petitioner himself had nominated the respondent as his wife in the service records. Having made such an entry in the service record, it is too far-fetched on the part of the petitioner to contend that the respondent is not his wife.

¶32

Apart from that, though it is contended that the marriage registration certificate, Aadhaar card of the respondent and the Aadhaar card of the ’ respondent s son are fabricated, when these documents are viewed along with the reply Ex.P11 received from the department where the petitioner worked, this

¶33

Page3 of 5

¶34

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

¶35

CRL RC No. 2200 of 2025

¶36

Court is of the firm opinion that those documents cannot be termed as fabricated. Apart from that, while harmoniously reading the order of the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, this Court does not find any error. In spite of the best efforts of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any ground to deviate from the findings rendered by the learned III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

¶37

9.Accordingly , the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed . Consequently,

¶38

connected Crl.M.P.No.20185 of 2025 is closed .

¶39

10-03-2026

¶40

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

¶41

NSL

¶42

¶43