Madras High Court
Rohini vs Jeyalakshmi on 18 January, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.01.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.609 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.9312 of 2018
Rohini ... Petitioner
vs.
1.Jeyalakshmi
2.Dhanalahsmi
3.Perumalsamy
4.Somasundaram
5.Pitcaiammal ... Respondents
Prayer:- This Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397(1) r/w
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment of
the appellate Court passed by the Mahila Fast Track Court, Dindigul
dated 02.07.2018 in Crl.A.No.81 of 2017 reversing the judgment
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul made in
D.V.O.P.No.12 of 2014 dated 15.03.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Lawrance
For Respondents : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
ORDER
This criminal revision case has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 02.07.2018 passed in Crl.A.No.81 of 2017 by the learned Mahila Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul. http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2.The petitioner has filed a compliant for the offence under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. After hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the learned Magistrate convicted the respondents 1 to 4 and acquitted the fifth respondent, against which, the respondents 1 to 4 have filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.81 of 2017 before the learned Mahila Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul. After hearing the arguments and perused the records, the learned Mahila Judge reversed the case in D.V.O.P.No.12 of 2014 and allowed the said appeal, against which, the complainant filed the present criminal revision case before this Court against the respondents 1 to 4.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 1 to 4 are the sister in laws of the petitioner and the third and fourth respondents are the husbands of the respondents 1 and 2. The fifth respondent is the mother in law of the petitioner. The petitioner's husband died in the year 2011. She filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.27 of 2012 before the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul against the respondents 1 to 5 and others. http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4.During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner cultivated the portion of the land of her husband and the respondents trespassed into the said land and they also harassed her. Therefore, she filed a private complaint for the offence under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. The learned Magistrate rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner and convicted the respondents 1 to 4, against which, the respondents 1 to 4 filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.81 of 2017 before the learned Mahila Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul and the learned Mahila Judge, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate, which warrants interference of this Court.
5.The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the allegation levelled against the respondents does not come under the Domestic Violence Act and it is only a civil dispute. Though the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the evidence, the learned Mahila Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and also interpreted the correct law and allowed the appeal, which does not warrant interference of this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
6.Heard the learned counsel on either side. Records perused.
7.It is the case of the petitioner that the property originally belonged to his father in law who purchased the property out of the joint income in the name of the fifth respondent. In the year 2007, the petitioner's father in law died. Thereafter, the husband of the petitioner following the words of the fifth respondent, harassed the petitioner and after the death of the petitioner's husband, the respondents trespassed into the portion of land allotted to the share of the petitioner's husband.
8.After the death of the husband of the petitioner, she filed a partition suit and she lived in the house allotted to the share of her husband and she was also cultivating the land directly through her men in the portion allotted to her husband. Since the property purchased in the name of the fifth respondent, the property was left from the partition. Thereafter, she filed the suit for partition in O.S.No.27 of 2012 before the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul. During the pendency of the suit, the respondents herein trespassed into the suit property and also physically assaulted and harassed the petitioner and restrained her to enjoy the family http://www.judis.nic.in 5 property. Therefore, she filed the complaint before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the evidence of the complainant.
9.The case of the respondents is that they have not assaulted the petitioner and the petitioner filed the partition which according to the respondents is a false case filed against in order to wreck vengeance. On a perusal of the record, it is clearly seen that the partition suit in O.S.No.27 of 2012 is pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul, the petitioner admitted that she was living in the house allotted to her husband and there is no dispute regarding the same and during the life time of her husband, he followed the words of his mother but there was no such complaint against her husband during his life time. Further, during his lifetime he did not file any suit for partition and he has not challenged the partition deed.
10. Though she has filed a partition suit, challenging the partition, there is no dispute with regard to the house allotted to the petitioner's husband. Admittedly, there is no allegation that the respondents tried to dispossess her from the residential house in which she is residing.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
11.Under these circumstances, since the suit is civil in nature, there was a quarrel and also there was a allegation of physical assault between the petitioner and the respondents due to civil dispute therefore it will not fall under the Domestic Violence Act.
12.On reading of the entire evidence, it clearly shows that during the life time of the petitioner's husband, there was a partition. After death of her husband she has challenged the partition deed. She has also filed the suit for partition and the same is pending. In view of the above, this Court finds that this will not fall under the Domestic Violence Act. Even Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act cannot be given the color in the present case. It is a well settled proposition that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court need not sit in the armchair of the appellate Court and revisit the entire evidence. However, this Court has to see as to whether there is any perversity in the appreciation of evidence while deciding the case by the appellate Court.
13.On reading of the entire materials, this Court is of the view that it is not a case falls under the Domestic Violence Act. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any perversity in the http://www.judis.nic.in 7 judgment passed by the appellate Court and there is no merit in this revision case.
14.In view of the above, the judgment passed by the Mahila Fast Track Court, Dindigul dated 02.07.2018 in Crl.A.No.81 of 2017, is hereby confirmed and the criminal revision case is dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to workout her remedy in the manner known to law before the appropriate forum. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.01.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
mm
To
1.The Mahila Judge,
Fast Track Court,
Dindigul.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Dindigul.
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
mm
Crl.R.C.(MD) No.609 of 2018
18.01.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in