Madras High Court
A.N.Kumar vs A.Shalini on 6 August, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
C.R.P.No.987 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06..08..2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.987 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.5627 of 2025
A.N.Kumar
..... Petitioner
-Versus-
A.Shalini
..... Respondent
Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set
aside the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the learned III Additional District
and Sessions Judge at Poonamallee in Tiruvallur District in Crl. Appeal No.53
of 2022 confirming the order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the leanred Judicial
Magistrate, Ambattur in Tiruvallur District in C.M.P.No.4563 of 2019 in D.V.
Case No.16 of 2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thirumalai
1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 08:09:14 pm )
C.R.P.No.987 of 2025
ORDER
Challenging the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, in Crl.A.No.53 of 2022 confirming the order dated 19.08.2021 in CMP No.4563 of 2019 in DVC No.16 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance to the respondent, the present criminal revision is filed by the respondent in main DV Case.
2. The respondent herein filed a complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the DV Act”), claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner. According to her, the marriage between herself and the revision petitioner was solemnized on 21.02.2011 at Adhiparasakthi Koil in Melmaruvathur. However, she admitted that no wedding invitation was printed nor any formal documentation or registration of the said marriage was available.
3. The respondent further admitted that she was previously married and her first husband passed away in the year 2009. She also has two children from the said wedlock. Post the alleged marriage with the revision petitioner, she 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 08:09:14 pm ) C.R.P.No.987 of 2025 claimed that they set up a matrimonial home and lived together as husband and wife. However, she alleged that over time, the revision petitioner began subjecting her to cruelty and ill-treatment, thereby prompting her to seek relief under the DV Act, including monthly maintenance.
4. The revision petitioner filed a strong objection to the said application, categorically denying the existence of any marital relationship with the respondent. According to him, the respondent was merely a tenant under him, and taking undue advantage of the landlord-tenant relationship, she had resorted to coercion and blackmail, including attempts to compel him to execute a sale deed. He emphatically denied that they were ever married or even in a live-in relationship.
5. Despite the denial of marital or live-in relationship, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, placing reliance on the suggestion made by the counsel for the revision petitioner during the cross-examination of the respondent (P.W.1) to the effect that there was no relationship for the past two years, inferred prior cohabitation and consequently passed an order directing the revision petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent.
3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 08:09:14 pm ) C.R.P.No.987 of 2025
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Poonamallee. However, the appellate court, by its order dated 04.01.2025, dismissed the appeal, affirming the order of the learned Magistrate.
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that, admittedly, there is no legally admissible evidence on record to establish that a valid marriage was solemnized between the revision petitioner and the respondent. It is further contended that there is no material to show that the parties were in a domestic or live-in relationship for a prolonged period so as to attract the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
8. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondent had manipulated documents, including Aadhaar cards and certain photographs, to project a false relationship. In fact, two separate Aadhaar cards bearing different addresses were allegedly secured by the respondent within a span of fifteen days prior to the filing of the complaint in the DV case, thereby casting serious doubts over her identity and credibility.
9. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the mere production of 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 08:09:14 pm ) C.R.P.No.987 of 2025 an Aadhaar card and a few photographs, without corroborative evidence to prove the marital or live-in relationship, is wholly insufficient to fix any liability on the revision petitioner under the provisions of the DV Act. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate directing the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance, and its confirmation by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are legally unsustainable and warrant interference by this court.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that in the DV proceedings, the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and was fully cross-examined by the revision petitioner. During the cross- examination, a suggestion was made to her that there was no relationship between them for the past two years, to which P.W.1 replied that they had lived together until two years ago and the respondent fell apart thereafter. According to the learned counsel, this suggestion implies an admission of past cohabitation, thereby supporting the respondent’s claim of a live-in relationship.
11. The learned counsel would also submit that both the trial court and the appellate court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to maintenance under the DV Act. Hence, the orders passed by the courts below are proper and do not 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 08:09:14 pm ) C.R.P.No.987 of 2025 warrant any interference.
12. This court has considered the rival submissions and perused the available records carefully.
13. The very foundation for passing the impugned orders granting maintenance appears to be the suggestion put to the respondent (P.W.1) during cross-examination and the answer elicited from her. It is to be noted that the revision petitioner has, at all stages, consistently denied the existence of any marital or live-in relationship with the respondent. He has categorically denied the alleged marriage as well as the claim of having lived in a live-in relationship with her.
14. Significantly, even in the complaint filed under the DV Act, the respondent herself admitted that there is no documentary evidence to prove the solemnization of marriage between her and the revision petitioner. In such a scenario, where the very existence of the marital relationship is in serious dispute, and where there is admittedly no evidence to establish that a marriage was solemnized or that the parties were living together in a relationship akin to marriage, the mere suggestion put forth during cross-examination by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the answer of P.W.1 stating that “they 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 08:09:14 pm ) C.R.P.No.987 of 2025 were in a relationship and fell apart only two years ago” cannot, by itself, form the basis for arriving at a conclusive finding that the parties were in a live-in relationship so as to justify the award of maintenance under the DV Act.
15. This court is, therefore, of the considered view that both the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in granting maintenance based solely on such a suggestion and reply, without there being any concrete evidence to substantiate the existence of either a marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage. As such, the findings recorded by the courts below in relation to the existence of marriage or live-in relationship between the parties are liable to be interfered with and are accordingly set aside.
16. As regards the question of interim maintenance, it is seen that the trial in the main DV case has already commenced, and the respondent has been examined as P.W.1 and on the side of the revision petitioner one Mohammed Abbas was examined as R.W.1. The matter is now posted for further evidence on the side of the revision petitioner. In order to strike a balance between the rights and interests of both parties during the pendency of the main proceedings and without prejudice to the defence raised by the revision petitioner, this court deems it appropriate to direct the revision petitioner to deposit a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) in lieu of the monthly 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 08:09:14 pm ) C.R.P.No.987 of 2025 maintenance granted by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the appellate court.
17. It is submitted that the revision petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on 04.07.2025 into the credit of the main DVC proceedings vide Receipt No.351785 issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, as per earlier orders of this court dated 23.06.2025. Hence, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the balance sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) into the credit of the main DV case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, is directed to proceed with the trial of the main DV case and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order or production of the web copy. It is made clear that the learned Magistrate shall independently adjudicate the issue of marriage and / or live-in relationship between the parties based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned orders or in this revision, and without prejudice to the defences raised by the revision petitioner in the main DV proceedings. 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 08:09:14 pm ) C.R.P.No.987 of 2025 In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected CMP stands closed.
Index : yes / no 06..08..2025
Neutral Citation : yes / no
kmk
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, Tiruvallur District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Tiruvallur District.
9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 08:09:14 pm ) C.R.P.No.987 of 2025 N.SATHISH KUMAR.J., kmk C.R.P.No.987 of 2025
06..08..2025 10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/08/2025 08:09:14 pm )