Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C praying to call for the records and set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, in Cr.M.P.No.120 of 2010, dated 15.06.2010, confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1), Madurai in C.A.No.57 of 2010 dated 07.03.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to reside in the shared household situated at No.6, Nagalingampillai Street, Thiruchuli Road, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.
ORDER
1. There is no representation for the petitioner. It is not the first time the revision petitioner has left the matter without representation. As such, this court deems it appropriate to pass an order after going through the records and after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the respondent.
2.The revision petitioner (V.Krishnaveni) is the mother of Rajkumar, the first respondent herein. A.Gopalakrishnan, the 2nd respondent is the father- in-law of Rajkumar. The revision petitioner is a widow. Claiming that she was living in the residential house bearing door No.6, Nagalingam Pillai Street, Thiruchuli Road, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District which was purchased by her husband in 1991; that her husband died on 22.02.2008 and that the first respondent, who got the property by virtue of a gift deed executed by her husband failed to maintain the revision petitioner and on the other hand, has driven her out of the said house, preferred a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukottai to give her police protection to stay in the above said house. Of course after the failure on the part of the police to take action on her complaint, Crl.O.P(MD)No.8835 of 2009 came to be filed and this court by order dated 20.10.2009 directed the police to take necessary action pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner dated 11.08.2009. As she could not enter the said house and reside therein even thereafter she preferred a complaint against the first respondent, as if he had committed an offence of domestic violence at the instigation of the 2nd respondent, who is none other than the father-in-law of the first respondent.
3.Based on the above mentioned allegation, the revision petitioner filed a petition under sections 18, 19 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 for the following reliefs:-
(i)Protection order under section 18 of the said Act, prohibiting the respondent No.1 and 2 from committing any act of domestic violence on the revision petitioner and prohibiting the respondent No.1 from alienating the property bearing door No.6 Nagalingam Pillai Street, Thiruchuli Road, Arupukkottai, Virudhunagar District, which the petitioner claims to be a shared household;
(ii)Restraining the respondents 1 and 2 from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the petitioner of the above said shared household at bearing door No.6, Nagalingam Pillai Street, Thiruchuli Road, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District after she would begin her stay in the said shared house and for giving protection to her through police; and
(iii)For an interim direction, directing the first respondent to permit the revision petitioner to reside in the said house.
4.The said petition, taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai as Cr.M.P.No.120 of 2010, was resisted by the first respondent on the ground that the said court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. On merits also, the said petition was resisted. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing, passed an order on 16.06.2010 dismissing the said petition.
5.As against the said order, the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.57 of 2010 which came to be disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai by judgment dated 07.03.2011. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai, upon hearing the appeal, concurred with the findings of the trial court that the revision petitioner had not made out any prima facie case for any of the reliefs sought for under sections 18, 19 and 23 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
6.The learned appellate Judge has adverted to the transactions that took place subsequent to the death of the husband of the revision petitioner and also referred to the fact that the revision petitioner chose to reside with her first son at Madurai, who got a sum of Rs.17,25,000/- from the first respondent for not claiming any right in the property mentioned above and that the said property had been never a house shared by the petitioner and the first respondent. Accordingly, the learned appellate Judge dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 07.03.2011 which is sought to be impugned in the present criminal revision case.
7.Upon perusing the records, this court does not find any defect or infirmity in the said order passed by the learned appellate Judge warranting interference by this court. There is no merit in the criminal revision case and the same deserves to be dismissed.
8.Accordingly, this criminal revision case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.