CRP/3381/2026 of R.Vijaya Vs P.Rama Chandran on 25 August 2026

ORDER

Heard Mrs.T.Bharathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.G.Veerapathiran, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner is the sister in law of the respondent. In other words, the husband of the petitioner, one P.Ramesh, is the own brother of the respondent herein. The petitioner's husband died intestate leaving behind his mother, the

( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 06:42:47 pm )

petitioner/his wife and a minor daughter. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent, that is the brother in law has been in occupation of the entire property which originally, jointly belonged to the petitioner's husband, Ramesh and the respondent herein. Despite, 50% being owned by the petitioner’s husband and 2/3rds of the said 50% fell on the shoulders of the petitioner and her minor daughter, the respondent continued to enjoy the physical possession of the entire subject property, including collecting rents from the tenant. The petitioner therefore filed an Application under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate has passed an order in favour of the petitioner, finding that there has been an economic abuse committed by the respondent and ordered a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid per month. The same was challenged by way of Crl.A. No.448 of 2025, by the respondent. Pending the Criminal Appeal, Crl.M.P. No.1 of 2025 was filed for stay in which the learned District Judge granting an absolute and unconditional stay. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

4. However, this Court after hearing the learned Counsel on either side, on 19.06.2026, directed the respondent to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month until further orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- has been paid

( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 06:42:47 pm )

only for June 2026 and there has been no payment thereafter. The learned counsel would therefore states that the order of the Judicial Magistrate, being a considered order, after giving an opportunity to the respondent as well and considering the fact that the respondent has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the entire subject property, despite being entitled to only one half, has to be put on suitable terms and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate has to be restored.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/brother in law, Mr.G.Veerapathiran, would contend that the respondent has already filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.4218 of 2022 on the file of the 19th Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. In fact, the said suit was contested by the revision petitioner and the preliminary decree granting one half share in favour of the respondent was also granted. Pursuant to the same, the respondent also initiated final decree proceedings, which is admittedly pending in I.A. No.7 of 2026. In the said final decree proceedings, the petitioner remained exparte, which paved the way for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

6. Mr.G.Veerapathiran, learned counsel also brings to my notice that the learned Advocate Commissioner has already inspected the subject property and is in the process of filing a final report. The learned counsel would fairly state that since this Court has directed payment of interim maintenance of

( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 06:42:47 pm )

Rs.50,000/- from June, 2026 onwards, the respondent is willing to continue to pay the said amount without prejudice to his rights and that such payment would continue till such time, the final decree passed in the partition suit.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the property is a very valuable property measuring 6,107 sq.ft and therefore, the amount of Rs.50,000/- would not be commensurate to the entitlement of the petitioner, especially since the petitioner is also burdened with the additional duty of the taking care of a minor daughter.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

9. Firstly, I am unable to appreciate the very approach adopted by the petitioner in attempting to avail of the statutory provisions under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner could have very well filed a suit for partition. There has been no demand for partition and separate possession or even for mesne profits. Without doing so, the petitioner has straight away attempted to arm twist the respondent, her brother in law after the demise of her husband, alleging economic abuse.

10. In the said proceedings, the learned Judicial Magistrate has directed

( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 06:42:47 pm )

to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the District Court in Crl.A. No.448 of 2025 and in Crl.M.P. No.1 of 2025, the Appellate Court finding a prima facie case in favour of the respondent, granted an unconditional and absolute interim stay of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in D.V.C. No.60 of 2022, I do not find any perversity or infirmity in the said order passed by the Appellate Authority, granting absolute interim stay in Crl.M.P. No.1 of 2025. No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent may have filed the suit for partition after initiation of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However nothing prevented the petitioner from filing a Civil Suit claiming her entitlement of 1/6th share in the subject property, 1/6 to her minor daughter, 1/6 to her mother in law, being the three Class -I legal heir of her husband, Mr.P.Ramesh.

11. The petitioner on the other hand, actually participated in the partition suit, which resulted in a preliminary decree being passed, declaring the half share of the respondent, brother in law herein. The petitioner could have very well taken out an Application seeking mesne profits, even pending the suit which also has not been admittedly done. Therefore, in view of the above, I do not find that it is a case where, the petitioner can allege economic abuse and initiate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 06:42:47 pm )

12. However, considering that this Court sufficiently protected the interest of revision petitioner and directed that the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month from June, 2026, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the following directions:

(i) The proceedings initiated by the petitioner in DVC. No.60 of 2022, stands quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondent shall pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, representing maintenance for July and August, 2026 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order;

(iii) The respondent shall continue to pay Rs.50,000/- per month to the petitioner from the month of September 2026 onwards, which shall be paid on or before the 10th of the succeeding month, this payment shall continue till such time, the final decree is passed and the parties are put in separate possession, or subject to other directions that may be given in the final decree proceedings. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. 25.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 06:42:47 pm )

RKP To The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 06:42:47 pm )

P.B.BALAJI, J. rkp CRP. No.3381 of 2026 and CMP. No.13161 of 2026 25.08.2026

( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 06:42:47 pm )