CRP/1842/2023 of Shakthivel Vs A. ANU on 30 September 2026

ORDER

The husband, who has suffered adverse orders in D.V.C.No.26 of 2020 dated 04.04.2022 and partly confirmed in C.A.No.12 of 2022 dated 18.02.2023, is the revision petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.P.Sriganesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner- husband and Mr.G.Ilamurugu, learned counsel for the respondent-wife.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would firstly contend that though the respondent moved the Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram, under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, she was falsely alleging that the husband was impotent, for which no proof was adduced by the respondent and relationship between the husband and wife had already strained and only in order to harass the petitioner and his family members, the proceedings were initiated by the respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that a consent divorce petition was already filed in HMOP.No.10 of 2022 and the respondent had already received all Sreedhana articles in the presence of Panchayatdars and therefore, nothing more remained to be returned by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also state that the Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram, had rightly found the allegations made against the family members of the petitioner to be false and unsubstantiated, while allowing the DV proceedings only against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the Courts below have erroneously ordered the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-, besides return of jewellery. The learned counsel for the petitioner taking me through the judgment of the Appellate Court, namely the Additional District and Sessions

Court, Villupuram, where the Appellate Court has found that the respondent was not entitled to return of 12 sovereigns of gold jewellery, but only 7 ½ cents, submits that there is absolutely no rhyme or reason for ordering return of 7 ½ of jewellery. He would further state that the even the Appellate Court found the claim of the respondent that Rs.50,000/- was paid for purchase of vehicle for Aadi Sreedhana to be false. He would therefore state that the Appellate Court ought not to have been swayed by sympathy and crocodile tears shed by the respondent. He would therefore pray for the revision petition being allowed.

5. Per contra, Mr.G.Ilamurugu, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the parties let evidence before the Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram and the respondent has clearly substantiated the fact that the respondent brought in jewellery at the time of marriage and also by producing photographs with regard to jewellery being worn by the respondent. In this regard, the learned counsel took me through the evidence of P.W.6, who spoke about P.W.2 adorning a gold chain around the petitioner’s neck. The learned counsel for the respondent would further state that it is normal in all Hindu marriages, especially in the said community that the bride’s family is expected to give gold jewellery at the time of marriage and the claim of the respondent was not even exorbitant or unreasonable, but was only to an extent of 12 sovereigns, which also was not given for the mere asking and the Appellate Court has rightly reduced the same to 7 ½ sovereigns, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. I have gone through the records, including the orders passed by the Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram, as well as the Appellate Court and the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.

7. Firstly, as regards, the compensation amount that has been awarded by the Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram, and not interfered with by the Appellate Court, I am unable to see any justification in quantifying the said amount at Rs.1,50,000/-. In fact, a sum of Rs.2000/- has already been awarded as maintenance to be paid by the petitioner every month as well. There are no valid or supporting reasons, justifying the award of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. In fact, having exonerated and acquitted all the family members of the petitioner and having proceeded to only implicate the petitioner on the grounds of committing offences under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Courts ought to have accordingly weighed all necessary factors before awarding compensation.

8. The respondent herself, in her application in D.V.C.No.26 of 2020, has not substantiated the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation, excepting for stating that it is on account of harassment and emotional distress. The Courts below have, for the mere asking, awarded the said compensation, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, when there is no basis for quantifying the compensation at Rs.1,50,000/-, the award has to be necessarily set aside. At the same time, the evidence brought on record by the parties clearly indicate that the respondent has suffered at the hands of the petitioner. The Additional Mahila Court, as well as the Appellate Court have concurrently found instances of harassment and mental cruelty caused to the respondent. Assessing the oral evidence adduced by the parties, I am inclined to therefore reduce the compensation amount to Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.1,50,000/-.

9. As regards return of jewellery, no doubt, the Appellate Court has modified the direction of the Additional Mahila Court to return 12 sovereigns of gold jewellery to 7 ½ sovereigns of gold jewellery. Though there is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is absolutely no supporting reasons as to why the Appellate Court has reduced the amount of jewellery to 7 ½ sovereigns and such finding is merely based on assumptions and presumptions, at the same time, it has to be kept in mind that the parties, at the time of marriage or prior to marriage, proceed only on the fond hope that the marriage will be a happy one and the parties cannot be expected to anticipate that the marriage will fail and that the parties will be forced to suffer criminal proceedings at a later point of time.

10. In such circumstances, the fact that the respondent has not been able to produce proof in support of the jewellery that has been given at the time of marriage cannot be put against the respondent. At least, in the present case, photographs have been filed to exhibit that gold jewellery has been given to the husband at the time of marriage. It is not uncommon for such jewellery to be given at the time of marriage. Therefore, some element of guesswork will necessarily have to come into play.

11. In the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and the findings rendered by the Appellate Court, I do not see any material error or irregularity committed by the First Appellate Court in directing return of 7 ½ sovereigns of gold jewellery instead of the demand of 12 sovereigns, which was accepted by the Additional Mahila Court. The reasoning of the Appellate Court to reduce the amount of gold jewellery as provided at Paragraph No.19 of the judgment is also probable. At the risk of repetition, in such matters, certainly there has to be some element of guesswork and as long as the order is not perverse and unconscionable, I do not see any necessity to interfere with the said order in revision. Therefore, I am inclined to confirm the order directing return of 7 ½ sovereigns of jewellery.

12. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed, reducing the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.1,50,000/- and confirming the order directing return of 7 ½ sovereigns of jewellery. No costs. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To

1. The Additional Mahila Court, Villupuram.

2. The Additional District and Sessions Court, Villupuram.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No. 1842 of 2023 30-09-2026