Madras High Court
Gunasekaran vs Hema on 15 November, 2016
Author: G. Chockalingam
Bench: G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 22.07.2016
Dated : 15.11.2016
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
Crl.R.C.Nos.10 of 2015 and 854 of 2016
and MP.No.1 of 2015 & Crl.MP.No.6539 of 2016
Crl.RC.10 of 2015
1.Gunasekaran
2.Shanthi
3.Mathivanan ...Petitioners
Vs.
Hema ...Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.86 of 2013 dated 27.11.2014 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the order made in MC.No.3 of 2012 dated 31.01.2013 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
Crl.RC.854 of 2016
M.Gunasekaran .. Petitioner
V.
G.Hema .. Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order dated 29.12.2015 made in MC.No.50 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai.
For Petitioners : M/s.Auxila Peter in Crl.RC.10 of 2015
Ms.R.Revathy
for M/s.Black N Red law Associates
in Crl.RC.854 of 2016
For respondent : Mr.A.Thiagarajan in both cases
COMMON ORDER
Crl.RC.No.10 of 2015 Criminal revision in Crl.RC.No.10 of 2015 is directed against the Judgment made in Crl.A.No.86 of 2013 dated 27.11.2014 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the order made in MC.No.3 of 2012 dated 31.01.2013 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
2.The brief facts which are relevant to the facts of the case are as follows :-
The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23.02.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs at JMS Thirumana Mandapam, Royapuram. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner. After the marriage, difference of opinion arose between the parties, the respondent preferred complaint before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai under Sections 18, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act and the case was numbered as MC.No.3 of 2012. After hearing both sides and upon perusing the documents, finally on 31.01.2013 the trial Court passed the following order :-
In the result this application is allowed :-
1.In view of the provision U/s.18 of the Act, the respondents are restrained from entering into the educational institution/work place of the complainant, and from contacting and disturbing the complainant in any manner.
2.In view of the provision U/s.20 of the Act the Ist respondent is directed to a sum of Rs.1,07,500/- to the complainant towards the usage and damages caused to the Maruthi Swift Car.
3.In view of the provision U/s.20 of the Act the Ist respondent is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards monthly maintenance to the complainant and the same has to be paid on or before 10th of every succeeding English calendar month.
4.In view of the provision U/s.22 of the Act the Ist respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant within three months from today.
Against the said order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the present revision petitioners preferred criminal appeal in Crl.A.No.86 of 2013 on the file of the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, the first appellate Court after hearing the arguments of both sides, passed the judgment on 27.11.2014. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the revision petitioners are before this Court by way of present revision.
3.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would mainly contend that the trial Court without application of mind and without considering the evidences adduced on either side, erroneously comes to a conclusion in awarding compensation, monthly maintenance and damages, which is liable to be set aside. The trial Court failed to consider that the respondent has filed separate application under Section 125 Cr.PC in MC.No.50 of 2012 and the same is also pending before the trial Court, the trial Court without considering the above fact erroneously allowed the application, the respondent is not entitled to claim any compensation or any order against the revision petitioners. Hence, the learned counsel prays to set aside the order of the Courts below and to allow the criminal revision.
Crl.RC.No.854 of 20164.Criminal revision in Crl.RC.No.854 of 2016 is directed against the order made in MC.No.50 of 2012 dated 29.12.2015 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai.
5.The brief facts which are relevant to the facts of the case are as follows :-
The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23.02.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs at JMS Thirumana Mandapam, Royapuram. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner. After the marriage, difference of opinion arose between the parties, the respondent preferred complaint against the petitioner seeking Rs.50,000/- towards monthly maintenance. The respondent filed OP.No.2018 of 2012 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Counter Claim in OP.No.4307 of 2015 was filed by the petitioner/husband for restitution of conjugal rights and to dismiss the petition filed by the wife and IA.No.106 of 2015 was filed by the respondent/wife under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking to direct the petitioner to hand over the gold jewels worth 18soverigns and take back his jewels worth 153/4 sovereigns to the respondent/wife. The trial Court after hearing both sides and upon perusing the documents produced on either side, the trial Court dismissed the Counter claim of the petitioner/husband and allowed the petitions filed by the respondent/wife for divorce, return of jewels and directing to petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m. towards maintenance from the date of order viz., 29.12.2015. Aggrieved against the order of maintenance granted by the Principal Family Court, Chennai the respondent/husband is before this Court by way of present revision.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the trial Court without application of mind erroneously allowed the petition and granted Rs.25,000/-p.m. towards monthly maintenance. The trial Court has not taken into consideration that already the respondent/wife has filed petition under Domestic Violence Act, for claiming maintenance. The trial Court without considering the above aspects erroneously passed the order of maintenance which is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel prays to set aside the order of the trial Court and to allow the criminal revision filed by the petitioner.
7.In both the cases, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial Court after appreciating the evidences adduced on both sides and after perusing the documents passed an appropriate order and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent prays for dismissal of both the revision petitions.
8.Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records.
9.Admittedly, the marriage between the husband and wife was not denied and there was difference of opinion arose between the parties, the respondent/wife preferred petition on the file of the Family Court, Chennai in OP.No.2018 of 2012 for dissolving the marriage between the husband and wife solemnized on 23.02.2011. The husband filed Counter Claim in OP.No.4307 of 2015 for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent/wife filed MC.No.50 of 2012 seeking Rs.50,000/- towards monthly maintenance and IA.No.106 of 2015 for return of jewels. Further, the respondent/wife has preferred MC.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It is admitted that the respondent/wife is living separately from the matrimonial house and both the parties are well-off and hailing from decent and socially economical background.
10.The Principal Family Court, Chennai jointly tried all the four petitions, on the side of wife, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the husband, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R15 were marked and CW1/Govindaraj was also examined.
11.The learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai examined wife as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P20 on her side and examined husband as RW1 and marked Exs.R1 to R8 on his side.
12.The Principal Family Court, Chennai passed an order on 29.12.2015, dismissed the Counter claim of the petitioner/husband and allowed the petitions filed by the respondent/wife for divorce, return of jewels and directing to petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-p.m. towards maintenance from the date of order viz., 29.12.2015.
13.It is not in dispute that both the parties are hailing from decent and socially economical background. The complainant/wife is a Post Graduate in Clinical nutrition and the husband is a Post Graduate in Business Administration and working in reputed software company and earning around eight lakhs per annum which is evident from Ex.P4, the husband has produced Ex.P16 which goes to show that he is earning Rs.51,841/-p.m. The revision petitioner has not produced any document to show that the respondent is earning and having separate source of income to maintain herself, hence, the petitioner/husband is duty bound to maintain his wife. This Court is of the view that awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/-p.m. towards monthly maintenance is excessive one and this Court is inclined to restrict the award of maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/-p.m. which is reasonable and appropriate one and the order made in MC.No.50 of 2012 is modified from Rs.25,000/-p.m. to Rs.15,000/-p.m. towards monthly maintenance.
14.The respondent/wife in her complaint specifically stated that her husband came to the college and obtained permission from the HOD to speak with her for 10minutes, the respondent/wife with the permission of HOD gone with her husband, the petitioner/husband threatened the respondent with dire consequences, the contents of the complaint given by the respondent which reads as follows :-
29.08.2011 njjp md;W ehd; fy;Yhpapy; ,Ue;j nghj vd; fzth; vd;dplk; ngr ntz;Lk; vd;W vd;Dila HODnklj;jplk; 10 epkplk; ehd; vd; kidtpa[ld; ngr ntz;Lk; vd;W mDkjp bgw;W vd;id fy;Y}hpf;F c;snsna fhhpny cl;fhu itj;J vd;Dld; ngrpdhh;/ mg;nghJ vd; fzth; vd;id kpul;oathnw ngrpbfhz;L ,Ue;jhh;. ehd; vjw;Fk; gzpatpy;iy eP ,nj nghy; ngrpf; bfhz;L ,Ue;jhy; ehd; cd; jfg;gdhiu bfhd;W tpLntd; ePa[k; cd; jha[k; gpr;ir vLf;f ntz;Lk; ehd; b$apYf;F nghf jahuhf cs;nsd; vd;W vd;id gaKWj;jpdhh;/ gj;J epkplk; mDkjp bgw;W ehd; fy;Yhpf;F nghfhjjhy;. vd; HODnklj;jpw;F re;njfk; Vw;gl;L vd; fzthpd; bjhiyngrpf;F te;J eP';fs; gj;J epkplk; mDkjp nfl;L K:d;W kzp neukhfpa[k; ncwkhit mDg;gtpy;iy/ clnd ncwkhit fy;Y}hpf;F mDg;gt[k; vd;whh;/ vd; fzth; HODaplk; nfhgkhf ngrptpl;L brd;Wtpl;lhh;/ nghFk; nghJ vd; jha;. je;ij ngr;ir nfl;L mth;fs; vd;d brh;yfpwhh;fnsh mjd; go elf;f ntz;Lk; vd;W brhy;yp brd;Wptpl;lhh;/
15.The respondent/wife in her complaint before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai claims the following injunction order : -
ghjpf;ffg;;gl;l egh; ,Uf;Fk; gs;sps;fTlk;/ fy;Y}hp /ntiyg; ghh;fFk; ,lj;jpy; vjph;kDjhuiu EiHatplhJ jLj;J epWj;jpf; fl;lis tH';Fjy;/ eP';f;s ntiyf;Fr; bry;Yk; ,lj;jpw;F c';fisr; bry;ytplhky; jLg;gtiuj; jLj;J epWj;jpf; fl;lis tH';Fjy;/ c';fsJ FHe;ijfs; gof;Fk; gs;sp fy;Y}hpapYk; kw;Wk; ,Uf;Fkplj;jpYk; vjph;kDjhuiu EiHatplhJ jLj;J epWj;jpf; fl;lis tH';Fjy;/ c';fSld; bjhlh;g[ bfhs;tij vjph;kDjhuh; ve;j KiwapnyDk; xU Kiwahy; jLg;gij epWj;jpf; fl;lis tH';Fjy;/ vjph;kDjhuuhy; c';fsJ brhj;Jf;fs; tpw;gid bra;ag;ggLtij jLj;J epWj;jpf; fl;lis tH';Fjy;/ ghjpf;ffg;gl;ltUf;F vjpuhf FLk;g td;Kiwiar; bra;ahjpUf;Fk; tifapy; vjph;kDjhuh; ghjpf;fg;gl;lth; rhh;e;Js;s egh;fs; / cwtpdh;fs; / my;yJ kw;w egh;fs; ,Uf;Fk; ,lj;jpw;Fg; g[wj;nj j';Fk;go fl;lisapLjy;/
16.In view of the above statement of the respondent/wife and also the prayer made by her, it is clear that the respondent/wife is studying in college at the time of filing the complaint. On reading of the prayer made in the complaint would show that she seeks a prayer not to disturb her in the educational institution/work place.
17.The respondent/wife filed another petition under Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, which was allowed by the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, against which Crl.RC.No.10 of 2015 is filed by the petitioner, which is also heard along with this case. The present revision is challenging the order of maintenance granting Rs.20,000/-p.m. towards monthly maintenance. The order of the trial Court in awarding Rs.25,000/-p.m. under Section 125 Cr.PC is reduced to Rs.15,000/-p.m. towards maintenance. Even though, two orders of maintenance have been passed by the different Court for the same set of parties, the respondent/wife is entitled to claim the maintenance of Rs.15,000/-p.m. with effect from 29.12.2015. Further, the trial Court directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,07,500/- towards usage and damages caused to the Maruti Swift Car and Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation and injunction restraining the husband from entering into the educational institution/work place and from contacting and disturbing the complainant in any manner. The respondent/wife has not produced any document to show the damages incurred to the Car. The trial Court awarded Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation, is also without any basis. This Court is inclined to reduce the damages incurred to the Car from Rs.1,07,500/- to Rs.50,000/- which is a reasonable one for the usage and damages incurred to the Car, the award of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is very much excessive one and this Court inclined to reduce the same from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- which is very appropriate one. The order passed under Section 18 of the D.V. Act restraining the husband from entering into the educational institution/work place and from contacting and disturbing the complainant in any manner, remains unaltered.
18.In the result, both the criminal revisions are partly allowed as follows :-
i)The order passed under Section 18 of the D.V. Act restraining the husband/Gunasekaran from entering into the educational institution/work place of the complainant, and from contacting and disturbing the complainant in any manner, is hereby confirmed.
ii)The order passed under Section 20 of the D.V. Act directing the husband/Gunasekaran to pay a sum of Rs.1,07,500/- towards usage and damages to the Maruthi Swift Car is reduced to Rs.50,000/- payable to the complainant/wife.
iii)The order passed under Section 22 of the D.V. Act directing the husband/Gunasekaran to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant/wife is reduced to Rs.5,00,000/-.
iv)The order made in MC.No.50 of 2012 directing the husband/Gunasekaran to pay Rs.25,000/-p.m. towards monthly maintenance is reduced to Rs.15,000/-p.m. payable w.e.f. 29.12.2015, which includes the order of maintenance passed under Section 20 of the D.V. Act in MC.No.3 of 2012.
v)the other conditions mentioned in the orders of the Courts below remains unaltered.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.11.2016.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No tsh To The Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
The XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
G. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
tsh Pre-Delivery Order in Crl.R.C.Nos.10 of 2015 and 854 of 2016 15.11.2016.
http://www.judis.nic.in