Lakshmanan v. Devaki

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 10.11.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 16.11.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY CRL.R.C.NO.935 OF 2014 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2014 Lakshmanan ... Petitioner

Versus

Devaki ... Respondent PRAYER:- Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records from the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, dated 07.08.2012, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.5265 of 2008, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, dated 12.05.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajamohan For Respondent : Mr.C.Prabakaran

ORDER

This Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.935 of 2014 is filed against the order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, dated 07.08.2012 passed in Crl.A.No.37 of 2011, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, dated 12.05.2011 in Crl.M.P.No.5265 of 2008, whereby, the learned Magistrate, on application by the respondent/wife/Devaki, under Section 17 and 20 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, had granted a relief of shared house hold by directing the petitioner to provide proper accommodation for the respondent/wife, Devaki, thereby, partly allowing the petition filed by the respondent/wife, while dis-entitling her claim for monetory reliefs.

2. Heard Mr.V.Rajamohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/wife was already living separately and the petitioner/husband has no property on his own. Under these circumstances, the direction issued by the learned Magistrate and confirmed by the learned Session Judge is illegal and bad in law and therefore calls for interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional powers.

4. Mr.C.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner/husband committed the act of domestic violence by entering into a relationship with the respondent/wife's sister viz., Padma and thereby removing her from the shared household. The petitioner/husband had Ac.3.00 cents of land and three houses, which he has deliberately and wantonly alienated in the name of the children born through the second wife, namely Padma and therefore, the respondent/wife, who has been deprived as household should be granted the benefit as directed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court.

5. It is further submitted that the monetory relief is refused only on the ground that the respondent/wife was eking out her livelihood on consolidated pay by being an organiser in the noon meal scheme and during the pendency of the proceedings, she had also superannuated and she is suffering at this age.

6. In this case, admittedly, the respondent/wife is now 66 years of age and the petitioner/husband is 74 years of age. On perusal of the petition, it is seen that the petition has been filed, stating that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 26.06.1974 and two children were born out of wedlock. While so, the petitioner/husband started living illegitimately with the petitioner's own sister viz., Padma and therefore, the petitioner/husband did not maintain the respondent and her children and even though the respondent had three Tamil Nadu Housing Board houses at Krishnagiri, she was forced out of the shared household and she would survive being a Noon Meal Organiser in Thaalapalli Middle School.

7. The husband resisted the above application by filing a counter with the averments that only because of the respondent/ wife was ill and unable to take care of the household, he married her sister thirty years ago and also he had also two daughters and son through his second wife/Padma.

8. In this factual background, the learned Magistrate held that the respondent/wife is not entitled to monetory relief, but however granted the relief of shared household by directing the

husband to provide a proper accommodation for her. The said order also affirmed by the learned District and Sessions Judge.

9. It is seen that the respondent is in domestic relationship with the petitioner as they are husband and wife as on date. It is further seen that originally they shared the household and were living together. Only because of the domestic violence, that is to say, the action of the husband in developing relationship with the sister of the petitioner, she has been forced out of the shared household. Now, she has also been superannuated from her job of Noon Meal Organiser and she is in dire straights and as such no fault can be found in the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate and learned District and Sessions Judge.

The shared household does not point out particularly superstructure, but the home shared by the husband and wife, just because, the husband's diverted his entitlement in the immovable property/super structure that will not in any manner negate the claim of the aggrieved wife, who has suffered domestic violence. On a combined reading of Section 17 with 19 (f) of the Protection of Woman from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it would be clear that the petitioner/husband is duty bound to provide a proper accommodation of the same standard for the respondent/wife.

10. Accordingly, there are no merits in this criminal revision case, and hence, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar klt To 1.

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

2.

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri.

+1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.59257 CRL.R.C.NO.935 OF 2014 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2014 KV(CO) PBS/30/11/2021