Mrs.S.Gowri, Aged 29 Years v. Mr.P.S.Sekar,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 31.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.No.1695 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.14114 of 2016 1.Mrs.S.Gowri 2.Prasanna (Minor age 9 years) rep by mother and natural guardian S.Gowri 3.Thithiksha (age 6 years) rep by mother and natural guardian S.Gowri ... Petitioners Vs.
Mr.P.S.Sekar ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 24.10.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.2933 of 2016 in unnumber Criminal Appeal in S.R.No.3277 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.V.Ravikumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Vivekanandan
ORDER
This Revision challenges the order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.2933 of 2016 in Un-number Criminal Appeal in S.R.No.3277 of 2016 on 24.10.2016.
2.The 1st petitioner/wife had preferred M.C.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvattiyur, seeking relief under the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act. Such petition was allowed exparte on 18.07.2014. The 1st petitioner/wife filed Crl.M.P.No.1362 of 2014 in
M.C.No.19 of 2014 seeking execution of the said order. Respondent/husband had filed Crl.M.P.No.2198 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvattiyur to revoke the order dated 18.07.2016 and such petition was dismissed on 05.05.2016. Against the dismissal thereof, respondent/husband had preferred Crl.R.C.No.847 of before this Court.
The respondent/husband had also preferred Crl.R.C.No.704 of 2016 before this Court challenging the order dated 18.07.2014 in M.C.No.19 of 2014. In both Revisions, this Court has expressed the view that remedy for the respondent/husband stood by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act. 3.Thereupon, the respondent/husband moved Crl.M.P.No.2933 of 2016 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, informing delay of 3 days in preferring the appeal. The 1st petitioner/wife contended that the respondent/husband had put up false records to support, plea of only three days delay in preferring the appeal.
4.Respondent/husband, in preferring the appeal and informing only a delay of three day, has contended that the delay in making available to him the order copy in Crl.R.C.No.847 of 2016 has caused the delay and the period for filing the appeal against the order dated 18.07.2014 in M.C.No.19 of 2014 is to be calculated from the date receipt thereof.
5.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the period of limitation for preference of appeal is to be calculated from the date of service of the order copy upon the respondent and the respondent had not been served with the copy upon passing of the order in M.C.No.19 of 2014. It is only on 10.05.2016 that copy of order was made made available to him on application.
6.Learned counsel for petitioners contended that in M.C.No.19 of 2014 there was an order restraining the respondent/husband from dealing with his properties. Towards giving effect to the same, a copy of the order was forwarded to respondent by registered post and on receipt of the acknowledgement, the same was filed with the concerned SubRegistrar, towards noting the encumbrance in respect of the properties.
7.On consideration of rival submissions and towards avoiding further delay of proceedings, this Court, while upholding the order under challenge, would enhance the order of costs passed by the Court below, from Rs.1,500/- to one of Rs.25,000/-. The respondent/husband has produced proof of payment of Rs.1,500/-, as directed by the Court below. The respondent shall now effect
payment of further sum of Rs.23,500/- within a period of two weeks from date of receipt of this order. The petitioners shall be entitled to withdraw the total sum of Rs.25,000/-, on due application. Upon payment of the sum as now directed by this Court, the Court below shall take the appeal on file, deal with the same on merits and dispose of it as expeditiously as possible. In the event of respondent failing to effect payment in keeping with this order, the Court below shall not entertain the appeal and may summarily dismiss the same. With the above terms, the Criminal Revision Case is ordered. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ssv To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur +1cc to Mr.Vivekanandan, Advocate, S.R.No.5835 KJ(CO) RS(22/02/2017) Crl.R.C.No.1695 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.14114 of 2016