CRP/4695/2025 of M. Sundarapandian Vs LEELA on 13 August 2026

ORDER

The husband who suffered an adverse mandatory direction in C.A. No. 94 of 2022 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge (Special Judge), Coimbatore, is the revision petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr.L.Chandrakumar, assisted by Ms.N.R.Jasmine Padma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the respondent wife (caveator).

3. Mr.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would firstly point out the fact that the petitioner husband is a senior citizen and is aged about 74 years and the respondent wife is aged about 80 years. The parties were living together under one roof as husband and wife. They are also blessed with 2 sons, one who is staying in the very same property, though independently and another son who is living away from the family. After disputes arose between the spouses, the husband went and resided with his son who stays away. However, he came back to the subject property. With regard to his re-entry into the matrimonial home, two contradictory versions have been projected. According to Mr.Chandrakumar, he re-entered peacefully without any protest in June 2018. Ever since June 2018, the petitioner lives in a confined room without any manner disturbing the respondent wife. However, Mr.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for respondent contends that the petitioner gained entry into the property illegally and a police complaint was lodged in this regard. Be that as it may, the fact remains that as on date, the petitioner is admittedly occupying a portion of the property, which is also under the occupation of his wife, the respondent.

4. The respondent filed a domestic violence complaint in DVA No. 43 of 2019 before the Judicial Magistrate (Special Court for trial of cases under the Domestic Violence Act, Coimbatore). The respondent/wife sought for the following reliefs:

1. The possession of the property occupied by the Husband and belonging to the wife should be delivered to her;

2. The husband should refrain from any acts of domestic violence;

3. No interference should be caused to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner wife.

5. After enquiry, the Judicial Magistrate (Special Court) found that the Petitioner is guilty of acts of domestic violence under various provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as the “DV Act”). However, the Special Court disallowed the relief regarding a direction to the husband to vacate and handover vacant possession.

6. As against the said order of the Judicial Magistrate (Special Court), the wife alone preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 94 of 2022. The petitioner/husband accepted the order of the Judicial Magistrate in domestic violence proceedings and insofar as the petitioner’s husband, the order became final, holding him guilty of acts of domestic violence.

7. In C.A. No. 94 of 2022, it was the contention of the respondent/wife that the Special Court had clearly erred in not granting a direction for possession having held that the husband had committed acts of domestic violence. The District Court allowed the appeal and granted the relief of possession which was originally disallowed by the Special Court. It is as against the said judgment in C.A. No. 94 of 2022 that the husband is before this Court, by way of this revision petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would state that both the husband and wife are senior citizens and the husband is living independently in one room alone, without in any manner disturbing or interfering with either the possession or the regular routine of his wife. He would further state that this weighed in the mind of the Special Court while disallowing the relief regarding possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is even willing to give any undertaking before this Court that he will not in any manner disturb or interfere with the possession or any of the activities of the respondent/wife.

8. Per contra, Mr.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the respondent/ wife would state that though the petitioner and respondent are admittedly senior citizens, they have not been in good books ever since 2018. He would further state that once the Special Court had come to a finding that the husband has committed acts of domestic violence, direction regarding possession was only more consequential in nature and ought to have been granted. He would further state that the husband has accepted the adverse findings against him in domestic violence proceedings by not preferring any appeal.

9. In this regard, he relies on the decision of this Court in V Anusha vs. B Krishnan, reported in 2022 4 LW 213, where this Court held that if the removal of the husband from the home is the only way to ensure domestic peace then irrespective of the fact whether the husband has or has not any accommodation of his own, he can be directed to leave the house and find an alternate accommodation. I have gone through the said decision in entirety. In fact, Section 19(1)(b) of the DV Act itself makes a provision where the Court is empowered to direct the husband to remove himself from the shared household.

10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, once the Court has found the husband guilty of acts of domestic violence, the Court ought not to have shown any sympathy on account of age of the petitioner by disallowing the prayer for vacating and handing over possession. In fact, police complaints lodged by the wife in June 2018 alleging trespass into the property have been placed before me, by way of typeset of papers. In fact, there has been a complaint by the wife even in the year 2003, at which point of time, the husband left the home and started living separately.

11. Further it is also bought to my notice that the husband has an immovable property of his own which has been let out. In such circumstances, I do not see any inconvenience being caused to the petitioner, if he is directed to vacate and handover possession to the respondent/wife. It has also been contended by the respondent that after 2003 and after 2018, the Petitioner was living with the other son who stays away from the family. In such circumstances, applying Section 19(1)(b) and also the ratio laid down in Anusha’s case (referred herein supra), I do not see any perversity or error or infirmity committed by the District Court, in granting the relief of possession in favour of the respondent/wife.

12. At the same time, considering the fact that admittedly the petitioner has been living in a room in the property belonging to the wife for the last 8 years and his own property has also been let out, I am inclined to grant time till 31.01.2027, for the petitioner to vacate and handover vacant possession of the portion currently under the occupation at MA 190, 1st Block, Ganapathy Maa Nagar, TNHB, Coimbatore- 641 006. It is made clear that within such time the petitioner makes necessary arrangements to shift into either his own property or to his other son’s residence, the Petitioner already having been found guilty of acts domestic violence, shall not cause any interference whatsoever to the possession and enjoyment of the property of the respondent/wife, including her peaceful movement within the domestic sphere. It is also made clear that no request for extension of time beyond 31.01.2027, shall be entertained.

13. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.

13-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Coimbatore.

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP CRP. No.4695 of 2025 and CMP. No.23753 of 2025 13-08-2026