Madras High Court
Ravichandran vs Manjula on 13 March, 2015
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.03.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR Crl.R.C.No.220 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 Ravichandran ... Petitioner vs. Manjula ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. r/w 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.02.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.7578 of 2014 in M.C.No.27 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Gururaj O R D E R
Material on record discloses that M.C.No.27 of 2013, has been filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [43 of 2005] (for short the Act) by the respondent/wife, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti contending inter alia that the petitioner/husband, ill-treated, criticised her character and conduct, insulted her for not bringing dowry, for not having a child and humiliated in front of elders and family friends, did not provide food, clothes, medicine and forcibly driven her from the matrimonial home.
2. She has also alleged that petitioner/husband and in-laws, scolded her with unpalatable words. According to her, petitioner/husband is working as a Software Engineer at Infosys (P) Limited, Mahindra Industrial Park, TPI/1 Central Avenue Techno Park SEZ, Mahindra World City, Chengalput and earns Rs.1,00,000/- per month. She has further submitted that he has not provided basic amenities and not cared her health and on the above facts, has prayed for (i) maintenance under Section 20 of the Act (ii) return of gold jewels, silver ornaments and other Sridhan articles or valuable security, and for further others.
3. Material on record discloses that denying the allegation of acts of domestic violence, petitioner/husband has filed a detailed counter affidavit. One of the contentions of the petitioner/husband is that the respondent/wife had an incurable disease prior to marriage, which was suppressed. On account of the incurable disease, honeymoon did not take place. The doctor who treated the petitioner/husband has opined that rashes and burns suffered by her, could be due to the incurable and communicable disease. In the counter affidavit in M.C.No.27 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, the petitioner/husband has alleged that his wife had caused cruelty, by suppressing the factum of the communicable disease, suffered by her. The petitioner/husband has further submitted that as she owns properties , the claim for maintenance has to be rejected.
4. Pending disposal of the M.C.No.27 of 2013, petitioner/husband has taken out Crl.M.P.No.7578/2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, for a prayer, directing the respondent/wife, to undergo medical test, in a hospital/laboratory, and to submit a report. Contention in the supporting affidavit is that the respondent/wife is suffering from incurable and communicable disease, and unfit for marital life.
5. In Crl.M.P.No.7578 of 2014, denying the averments and opposing the prayer for a medical test, respondent/wife has submitted that earlier, petitioner/husband has filed HMOP No.9 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti, for divorce, and in the said proceedings, respondent/wife has already filed a detailed counter affidavit, along with a medical report, wherein, the doctor has opined that she does not suffer from any disease and in particular, any communicable disease. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/wife in Crl.M.P. No.7578 of 2014 in M.C.No.27 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, also shows a the xerox copy of the medical report, filed in HMOP No.9 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Puducherry has been appended, and that she has also prayed to treat the report as part and parcel of the counter affidavit, in Crl.M.P.No.7578 of 2014 filed in M.C.No.27 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti.
6. Counter affidavit of the respondent/wife also shows that the petitioner/husband has filed a petition to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.27 of 2013, and that the same has been dismissed on 19.06.2014. Thereafter, respondent/wife has filed her chief affidavit on 16.07.2014 and Exs.P1 and P2 have been marked. Subsequently, case has been posted on 01.08.2014 and again, posted on 22.08.2014, 10.09.2014 and 08.10.2014, for cross examination of respondent/wife and at this juncture, petitioner/husband has filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.7578 of 2014 for a direction to the respondent/wife to undergo medical test, in a hospital/laboratory and for the report thereof.
7. Perusal of the impugned order shows that in addition to the averments made in supporting affidavit of Crl.M.P.No.7578 of 2014, reliance has been made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Nandial Wasudeol Badwaik vs. Lata Nandial Badwaik and another, 2014(5) LW 449, which deals with scientific evidence required, to prove the paternity.
8. After considering the rival submissions, and going through the above said judgment referred, vide order dated 18.02.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.7578 of 2014 in M.C.No.27 of 2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, has found that the said judgment is opposite to the facts of the case.
9. On the materials on record, the Court below has also observed that when the respondent/wife was to be cross examined, in order to protract the proceedings in M.C.No.27 of 2013, Crl.M.P.No.7578 of 2014, has been filed for a direction to the respondent/wife to undergo medical test.
10. Though Mr.R.Gururaj, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, has assailed the correctness of the impugned order, on several grounds, inter alia that the lower Court has failed to consider that the existence of a communicable disease, which could be best established, only by medical evidence, and in that regard, submitted that the Court below has failed to issue appropriate directions, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, for the reason that a xerox copy of the medical report on that aspect has already been submitted by the respondent/wife in the proceedings in M.C.No.27 of 2013, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti. Proceedings in HMOP No.9 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti, is already filed along with counter affidavit of Crl.M.P.No.7578 of 2014.
11. As stated supra, in the application, filed under Section 12 of the Act, respondent/wife has alleged, various acts of domestic violence, which includes verbal and emotional abuse, by the petitioner/husband and in-laws. Section 3(a) of the Act broadly states about physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse.
12. Explanation I (iii) defines verbal and emotional abuse, and it states:
"Verbal and emotional abuse" includes -
(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or male child; and
(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested."
13. From the material records, it is deduced that the petitioner/husband has filed HMOP No.9 of 2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Panruti. He is very much aware of the medical report filed by the respondent/wife, wherein, the doctor seemed to have opined that she does not suffer from any communicable disease.
14. Further, earlier, the petitioner/husband has also made an attempt to quash the entire proceedings for other reason stated therein, and having failed in his attempt, has now come forward to file this petition, in the year 2014.
15. After the dismissal of the quash proceedings, respondent/wife has been examined in chief and Exs.P1 and P2, have been marked as early as on 16.07.2014. Thereafter, the case has been posted on 22.08.2014, 10.09.2014 and 08.10.2014, for cross examination of respondent/wife. Crl.M.P. No.7578 of 2014 filed for the relief, is nothing, but an attempt to protract the proceedings in M.C.No.27 of 2013. In the light of the discussion and for the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the view that no grounds, are made out for revising the said impugned order. There is no merit in the revision case warranting interference.
S.MANIKUMAR,J., gms Accordingly, the criminal revision case stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti, is directed to dispose of M.C.No.27 of 2013 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months, having regard to the expediency, in which, cases of Domestic Violence Act have to be disposed of.
Gms 13.03.2015
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Panruti
Crl.R.C.No.220 of 2015