Madras High Court
M.Balasubramanian vs S.Neelaveni on 14 December, 2021
Author: R.N.Manjula
Bench: R.N.Manjula
Crl.R.C.No.873 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.R.C.No.873 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.No.8110 of 2017
M.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner
Vs
S.Neelaveni ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and
401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Namakkal in Crl.A.No.63 of 2014 dated 10.06.2015 confirming the
order of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi,
Namakkal District in M.C.No.13 of 2012 dated 09.05.2014.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.873 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Selvarajan
For Respondent : Mr.John
for Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 10.06.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.63 of 2014, confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi dated 09.05.2014 passed in M.C.No.13 of 2012.
2. The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife who had filed the petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for seeking certain relief.
3. The respondent has filed the petition for directing the husband to return her 15 Sovereigns of gold jewels, maintenance order and restraint order etc. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.873 of 2017
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate has partly allowed the petition and granted an order of injunction for not to alienate the petition mentioned properties and also a direction to return the 15 ¾ sovereigns of jewels to the respondent. Aggrieved the same, the petitioner/husband had preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal challenging the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi. The said Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2014 was also dismissed on 10.06.2015 by confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is no more the wife of the petitioner; the learned Trial Judge and the learned appellate Judge have passed the order to return the jewels only on some presumption made in favour of the respondent; the sale deed pertaining to the petition mentioned properties stood in the name of the petitioner/husband and the respondent. The respondent does not have any 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.873 of 2017 title and her name was included in the sale deed just for name sake.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent/wife has proved before the Court that the jewels pledged by the petitioner in Co-operative Bank are all the jewels belong to the respondent/wife and the Courts below are right in granting the relief of restraint order by taking into consideration the sale deeds in the joint names of both the petitioner and the respondent.
8. Point for consideration:
Whether the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in confirming the restraint order and order to return jewels is fair, proper and legal?
9. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was not denied. It seems that their marriage went into troubled weather and thereafter, the couples found in difficult to live together. The respondent / wife has filed the petition in M.C.No.13 of 2012 for getting certain reliefs 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.873 of 2017 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. One of the prayers made by the respondent is directing the petitioner to return her 15 sovereigns of gold jewels. At first, the petitioner denied the possession of jewels or the fact that they were pledged in Co-operative Bank. But, his cross-examination reveals that he had pledged the jewels with Co-operative Bank.
10. The Courts below have observed that during the course of cross- examination itself, the petitioner/husband had admitted that he has pledged the gold ring which contains the M.L. Initial belonged to the respondent in the Co-operative Bank. When the petitioner had denied his act of pledging the jewels with the Bank, his cross-examination revealed the truth that he had pledged the jewels with the Co-operative Bank. Further, the respondent had called the records pertaining to pledging of the jewels with the Co- operative Bank. The learned Trial Judge had observed that the jewels claimed by the respondent tallied with the jewels pledged with the Co- operative Bank. Despite the learned trial Judge had made observation that there is a presumption that those jewels were belonging to the respondent, in 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.873 of 2017 reality it is not only a presumption, but also a proved fact that those jewels belonged to the respondent. In that context, it is right on the part of the Courts below to pass an order directing the petitioner to return the jewels to the respondent.
11. Regarding restraint order restraining the petitioner from alienating the properties, it is seen that the properties in question stands in the name of the respondent as well. If the petitioner claims that the name of the respondent is included in the sale deed just for name sake, the burden is on him to prove the same and that too before a Civil Court. While dealing with the petition filed under Domestic Violence Act, it is sufficient if the Courts could get prima facie proof about the properties for the purpose of passing restraint order. Since the properties stands in the names of both the petitioner and the respondent, it is right for the Court to pass an order restraining the petitioner from alienating the same. Since the lower Courts have considered the materials placed before them in a proper perspective and granted appropriate relief, I find no reason for interference. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.873 of 2017
12. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed and the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal dated 10.06.2015 passed in Crl.A.No.63 of 2014, confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi dated 09.05.2014 passed in M.C.No.13 of 2014 are confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.12.2021 Index:yes / No Internet:Yes / No ssn To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.873 of 2017 R.N.MANJULA, J., ssn Crl.R.C.No.873 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.8110 of 2017 14.12.2021 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis