Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 176 (MAD)

A. S. Raman v. U. R. Ananthakrishnan

2007-01-18

S.ASHOK KUMAR

body2007
Judgment :- The revision petitioner/wife filed the Interlocutory Application in the pending HMOP filed by the husband for divorce, to refer the case to the concerned Magistrate to initiate prosecution against the respondent for committing forgery and perjury in I.A.No:509/03 and 1757 of 2000 in O.P.No:69 of 1997 alleging contradictory fact emanating from the documents produced by the respondent/husband with regard to disbursement of retirement benefits to the husband and with regard to the owning of a flat. The learned II Additional Principal Judge, Chennai dismissed the said application. Aggrieved of the same, the present revision has been filed by the wife. 2. The respondent/husband has filed the HMOP for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriages Act. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/wife, along with the OP, the respondent has not filed the marriage photo, wedding invitation etc., which is in violation of the provision under Order & Rule 14(1) and(3) CPC. The revision petitioner filed Interim Maintenance Petition for herself as well as for the maintenance of her son. The revision petitioner also filed applications to call for the records from the Punjab National Bank where the husband worked as a Branch Manager and got voluntary retirement. 3. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent submitted few documents related to his Income and VRS details to the court on his individual capacity by claiming as if they have been issued by the Bank. According to the revision petitioner, the documents submitted by the Bank directly to the court as a Garnishee Document there is a huge difference between those documents as to the total retiral benefit. Further, there is a delay of 5 years for the disposal of the maintenance application granting an interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/=, due to the submission of false income certificate and proof, false affidavit, false documents, non submission of documents in the open court by the Bank and suppression and omission of material facts in their official capacity by Senior Managers of the Bank. .4. .4. According to the revision petitioner when she filed an I.A., for attachment of two properties, though the husband stated in his counter that the flat at C.6, Rams Maruthi Apartment Muthala Amman Koil Street extension at Ashok Nagar, Chennai for deposit of a sum of Rs.50,000/= for the future maintenance, the husband deposited the amount to the court to avoid attachment of the property even though the address and property does not owned by him. According to the revision petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband has committed act of forgery and perjury and therefore the matter has to be referred for criminal prosecution. 5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent has not committed any forgery and eh said certificate in question had been issued only by the Bank and the same had been confirmed by the Trial Court in the enquiry with regard to its genuineness and authorities who had issued the said certificate had also categorically admitted that the said certificate in question was issued by him and the same is not forged. 6. As regards the allegation that he had filed false affidavit with regard to the owning of the flat in question it is submitted that the flat No.C-6, Rams Maruthi Apartments, Muthalamman Koil Street extension West Mambalam, Chennai-33 and on the other hand the petitioner had taken a specific plea that he is owning a flat only at No.6, Maruthi Apartment, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-83 only and therefore the respondent had only denied that he is owning a flat at Ashok Nagar and hence there is no false denial and there is nothing in the counter filed by the respondent with regard to the same. Therefore the allegation of forgery and perjury is devoid of merits. 7. According to the counsel for the respondent, the present CRP under Art.227 itself is not maintainable as the petitioner is having a right of appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C., and therefore the petitioner/wife has no locus standi to maintain this petition which position has been fortified by the judgment made in 1996 (2) CTC page 490 (D.Ganesan and 2 others Vs. M.S.Chandrabose and another). Learned counsel for the respondent also alleges that pending the Interlocutory Applications, the counsel on record Mr.Amarselvan had been blackmailing and threatening the respondent to part with a huge monetary settlement for divorce. M.S.Chandrabose and another). Learned counsel for the respondent also alleges that pending the Interlocutory Applications, the counsel on record Mr.Amarselvan had been blackmailing and threatening the respondent to part with a huge monetary settlement for divorce. The respondent also filed a complaint of adultery with the revision petitioner against the said Amarselvan before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in C.C.No.4586 of 2006. .8. As regards the allegation that the respondent has filed a forged certificate showing payment of Rs.4 lakhs as retirement benefits issued by Punjab National Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, the trial court has clearly observed that the certificate filed by the respondent and the documents presented by the Garnishee Bank in response to the order of subpoena is signed by the same Senior Manager and hence the allegation of forgery is baseless and contrary to facts. 9. According to the respondent, even though this court directed the trial court to dispose of the HMOP within a period of three months in CRP.No:287 of 2005 by order dated 3. 2005, it is only the petitioner is dragging on the proceedings by filing one or other petitions. It is also stated by the respondent that in the counter to I.A.No:1757 of 2000 he has only mentioned that 50% of the VRS benefits will be paid in bonds redeemable after 5 years and from the remaining amount all staff loans amount to Rs.4 lakhs will be appropriated and the respondent will be eligible to receive monthly pension so less than Rs.5000/=. Therefore there is no suppression of fact or denial of any thing as to his retiral benefits. In fact the petitioner himself stated self contradictory facts as having received Rs.35 lakhs Rs.22 lakhs Rs.28 lakhs and Rs.25 lakhs besides bonds by the respondent towards retirement benefits in her various applications in the same application when the Garnishee Bank has presented documents stating disbursement of Rs.19 lakhs only including bonds with ulterior motives to mislead the court. According to the respondent, the copy of the lease deed clearly states that the subject property is situated in West Mambalam and not in Ashok Nagar as mentioned in I.A.No.509 of 2004 and 2958 of 2004. The papers mentioning the schedule of property details were deliberately removed by the petitioner to mislead the court. 10. According to the respondent, the copy of the lease deed clearly states that the subject property is situated in West Mambalam and not in Ashok Nagar as mentioned in I.A.No.509 of 2004 and 2958 of 2004. The papers mentioning the schedule of property details were deliberately removed by the petitioner to mislead the court. 10. However, according to the respondent he agreed for mutual consent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3000/= per month on the understanding that the trial in the main OP will commence immediately on payment of entire arrears without insisting for a detailed enquiry although the respondent is having evidence to prove that the petitioner is having sufficient means and is living in a posh apartment with a monthly rental of Rs.5000/=. .11. A perusal of the impugned order and the submissions made by the respective counsels would show that the learned Family Court Judge has dismissed the application considering the factual circumstances that the respondent had not filed any false affidavit regarding the ownership of the said flat in question so as to mislead the family court and the certificate dated 3. 2004 issued by the Bank is not a forged one as the said Certificate was signed by the same Senior Manger who has signed the documents presented by the Garnishee Bank under the order of Subpoena. The learned Judge also observed that it is not expedient to order an enquiry into the difference in amounts in the certificate/documents as the Interlocutory Application itself was disposed of by mutual consent and the certificate in question was not relied by the court. In the above circumstances, the application for initiating criminal proceedings for forgery and perjury is not at all sustainable either on law or on facts at this stage. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the order of dismissing the I.A.No.38 of 2006. 12. In the result, this CRP is dismissed. Consequently, connected CMPs are also dismissed. No costs.