← Library
Madras High CourtCRL RC/2200/2025dismissed

G.Ramamurthy v. R.Amsaveni Alias Amutha

2026-03-10Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL. R.C No. 2200 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.20185 of 2025 G.Ramamurthy ..Petitioner Vs R.Amsaveni @ Amutha ..Respondent Prayer: This Criminal Revision petition is filed under Section 438 r/w. 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order made in M.C.No.14 of 2022 dated 12.06.2025 on the file of the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner:

Mr.R.Rajendran for M/s.Dhineshkumar Associates For Respondent:

No appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order made in M.C.No.14 of 2022 dated 12.06.2025 on the file of the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent is not his wife and that even according to the ration card annexed along with the typed set, which was issued for the period 1988-2003, there is no reference to the name of this petitioner as the husband. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the M.C. case has been filed by the respondent herein only upon the instigation of the petitioner's brother-in-law, as the said brother-in-law had acquaintance with the respondent.

4. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was married only once, to Radha and that there is no nexus between himself and the respondent. However, the III Additional Principal Judge, Chennai without properly considering the material aspects, relied upon the photographs, marriage registration certificate and the Aadhaar card of the petitioner, erroneously passed order. According to the petitioner, those documents are fabricated and hence, he prayed to allow the revision petition.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made.

6. It is pertinent to mention that the scope of revision is very limited. Unless there is perversity in the findings, the question of interfering with the

order of the Trial Court does not arise. In the present case, with regard to perversity, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents relied upon by the Trial Court are fabricated. However, while considering the defence put forth by the petitioner, there is no specific defence except his vague denial in the counter statement. On perusal of the list of documents, the petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate his case, nor he has examined any witnesses to demonstrate that the documents relied upon by the respondent are false. Mere pleadings in the counter statement cannot be equated with that of the proof.

7. While looking at the impugned order, the learned III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai relied upon the reply Ex.P11 received from the employer of the petitioner. In the said document, it is shown that the petitioner himself had nominated the respondent as his wife in the service records. Having made such an entry in the service record, it is too far-fetched on the part of the petitioner to contend that the respondent is not his wife.

8. Apart from that, though it is contended that the marriage registration certificate, Aadhaar card of the respondent and the Aadhaar card of the respondent's son are fabricated, when these documents are viewed along with the reply Ex.P11 received from the department where the petitioner worked, this

Court is of the firm opinion that those documents cannot be termed as fabricated. Apart from that, while harmoniously reading the order of the III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai, this Court does not find any error. In spite of the best efforts of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any ground to deviate from the findings rendered by the learned III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai. 9.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.No.20185 of 2025 is closed. 10-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order NSL To The III Additional Principal Family Court, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 10-03-2026