JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu in C.A.No.45 of 2015 by judgment dated 03.08.2017 partly modifying and confirming the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District, made in M.C.No.2 of 2014 dated 29.10.2015 and set aside the same.) 1. The petitioners who are the respondents in M.C.No.2 of 2014 are facing trial under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act filed by the respondents seeking protection order under Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act, filed the present Criminal Revision Petition. 2. The gist of the complaint is that the marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent took place on 09.03.2008 as per the Hindu customs. During their marriage, the first petitioner was presented with 11.25 sovereigns of gold jewels, Rs.10,000/- for the dresses and Rs.3,00,000/- worth of household articles. Further, the first respondent was presented with 40 sovereigns of gold jewels. After some time, the first petitioner insisted for a two wheeler, a sum of Rs.60,000/- was given in cash. After the marriage, both the first petitioner and the first respondent were residing at No.56, Malai Nagar, Acharapakkam along with other petitioners. At the instigation of petitioners 2 to 6, the first petitioner demanded a car, hence, a Tata Indica car was presented. Out of their wedlock, the respondents 2 and 3 were born to them. The first petitioner further demanded properties, particularly, the property which was settled by the first respondent's mother. During the marriage life, the first respondent was always forced to get articles from her parents, she also obliged the same, despite that she was treated like a slave. On 10.11.2012, the first respondent lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Melmaruvathur. During enquiry, the first petitioner appeared, gave an undertaking that hereafter he would take care of his wife properly and hence, the complaint was withdrawn. Later, the first petitioner gave a false complaint as though the respondents herein were found missing, when action was proposed to be taken for the false complaint, the first respondent intervened and action was dropped. On 19.04.2013, the petitioners herein joined together, undressed the first respondent and attempted to douse her with kerosene and set fire. Later, the first petitioner gave a false complaint as though the respondents herein were found missing, when action was proposed to be taken for the false complaint, the first respondent intervened and action was dropped. On 19.04.2013, the petitioners herein joined together, undressed the first respondent and attempted to douse her with kerosene and set fire. The first respondent relieved herself, went to her parents place and thereafter, again lodged a complaint on 27.04.2013. Suppressing all these facts, the first petitioner filed a petition for divorce before the Sub Court, Madurantakam and managed to get an exparte order in his favour despite the first respondent was living together with the first petitioner. Further, the first petitioner denied food, shelter, clothing and basic amenities to the respondents. Hence, the respondents filed a petition in M.C.No.2 of 2014 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthakam seeking protection from the petitioners not to disturb the respondents from residing at No.26, Malai Nagar, Acharapakkam, further sought for Rs.25,000/- as maintenance, return of 51.25 sovereigns of gold jewels presented to the first respondent, diamond stud, Rs.60,000/- cash given for purchase of two wheeler, Rs.3,00,000/- worth of household articles, birth certificate, educational certificate of the respondents and sought Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the respondents. 3. Before the Trail Court, the first respondent examined herself as P.W.1, marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P18, the first petitioner examined as R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R17. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court passed a protection order directing the respondents to reside at No.26, Malai Nagar, Acharapakkam and directed the petitioners not to disturb them. The Trial Court further directed the first petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month, return the gold jewels of 51.25 sovereigns, Rs.60,000/- cash received for purchase of two wheeler, hand over all the documents of the respondents, family ration card and further, directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the respondents. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal in C.A.No.45 of 2015 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal in C.A.No.45 of 2015 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu. The Lower Appellate Court by judgment dated 03.08.2017 partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Trial Court in respect of return of sum of Rs.60,000/- received for purchase of two wheeler and in respect of compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid for the mental agony of the respondents. Further, in respect of monthly maintenance, the Lower Appellate Court directed the first petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month [Rs.4,000/- for each of the respondents] instead of Rs.25,000/- as directed by the Trial Court and in respect of other reliefs, the order of the Trial Court was confirmed. Against which, the present revision is filed. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that both the Courts below without proper application of mind and appreciation of the facts passed an erroneous order and there is no evidence or materials produced by the respondents to prove her case. Further, there is no iota of evidence against the petitioners 2 to 6. The first petitioner is the estranged husband, the second and third petitioners are the mother-in-law and father-in-law, fourth and fifth petitioners are the sister and her husband, the sixth petitioner is the brother-in-law of the first respondent. The admitted case of the respondents is that after the marriage, the first petitioner and the first respondent were residing separately in Guduvanchery and as such roping in the entire family members of first petitioner is only to brook vengeance, which is not proper. The first petitioner and the first respondent were residing in Guduvanchery, is confirmed with the fact that the second respondent was born in SRM Hospital, Kattankalathur, nearby place to their residence in Guduvanchery. It is admitted by the first respondent that she was consulting her family Doctor who was serving in SRM Hospital, Kattankalathur. Likewise, the second daughter/third respondent was born in Adi Parasakthi Hospital, Melmaruvathur, which near to her parents house in Acharapakkam. Thus, it is not in dispute that she was living separately in Guduvanchery initially and thereafter with her parents. The petitioners and the first respondent are close relatives. The first respondent's mother is none other than the paternal Aunt of the first petitioner. Apart from the case under Domestic Violence Act, there are other cases pending. 5. Thus, it is not in dispute that she was living separately in Guduvanchery initially and thereafter with her parents. The petitioners and the first respondent are close relatives. The first respondent's mother is none other than the paternal Aunt of the first petitioner. Apart from the case under Domestic Violence Act, there are other cases pending. 5. The first petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2013 seeking for divorce and on coming to know about the same, as a counter blast, the first respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2014. Both the cases were disposed of by a common judgment by the Sub Court, Madurantakam on 18.09.2019, in which there have been lot of admissions by the first respondent which was highlighted in the common judgment. With regard to the presentation of sridhana articles, the specific case of the first petitioner is that during the engagement, he presented five sovereigns of gold chain, one carat of diamond ring and a silk saree worth Rs.25,000/- to the first respondent, in return, the first respondent's family presented him with 5.30 sovereigns of gold ring. Further, during the marriage 20 sovereigns of gold jewels was presented to the first respondent by her parents, five sovereigns of gold jewels and household articles. This contention was not denied by the first respondent which is a finding, likewise, the birth of the respondents 2 and 3 is discussed. With regard to the purchase of Tata Indica car, it is confirmed that the car still stands in the name of the first respondent's father. Further, the bank statement and the documents produced by the first petitioner would show that the monthly EMI, insurance and tax for the car was paid by the first petitioner. Further, the Sub Court, Madurantakam on examination of the first petitioner, first respondent, their evidence and documents, dealt with the sridhana articles, demand of dowry, harassment and the first respondent's voluntary deserting the matrimonial home by giving reasons. 6. It is further submitted that the first respondent being the only daughter to her parents and her brother, an Advocate are instrumental for the misunderstanding and separation in the family life. 6. It is further submitted that the first respondent being the only daughter to her parents and her brother, an Advocate are instrumental for the misunderstanding and separation in the family life. Though they are close relatives, the first petitioner was not allowed to be independent on his own, initially a separate home was set up at Guduvanchery and even for small disputes, she would immediately go to her parents house, each time the first petitioner would go there, convince her and bring her back. The first respondent's family were using physical force and at times, assaulted the first petitioner as well as his parents. In one of the incident, the first petitioner was chappalled in front of the police station, there were several criminal complaints lodged by the first respondent to the All Women Police Station, Guduvanchery, Acharapakkam and other Police Station, thus causing continuous humiliation and harassment. Finally, the learned Sub Judge, Madurantakam allowed H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2013 filed by the first petitioner seeking divorce and dismissed H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2014 filed by the first respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Further, as regards the residential right, already DVAC case is pending, the Lower Court given interim direction, hence the same was not considered and with regard to the other aspects, the Lower Court given a finding. Further, arraying petitioners 2 to 6 as accused is unwarranted and they are arrayed to cause harassment. The major allegation against the petitioners 2 to 6 is that on 27.04.2013, the first respondent lodged a complaint stating that on 19.04.2013, she was undressed, brutally beaten, kicked and she also sustained blood injuries, she cried in pain seeking help, at that time, the petitioners 2 to 6 came there, further instigated and abetted the first petitioner to continue his assault and they forcibly obtained signature from the first respondent in the blank stamp papers. It is further submitted that in one breath, the first respondent claims 33 cents of property in S.No.31/4/1 at Malai Nagar, Acharapakkam, which was earlier settled to his mother by her maternal grandfather, for which she filed a civil suit in O.S.No.207 of 2015 which is pending before the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam. Later for the same property, she seeks protection order as though she is chased out of the matrimonial home, thus, she takes contradictory stand as per her convenience. Later for the same property, she seeks protection order as though she is chased out of the matrimonial home, thus, she takes contradictory stand as per her convenience. The first petitioner was living separately and only after the first respondent deserted her matrimonial home, he is residing with his parents, namely, the petitioners 2 and 3. The third and fourth petitioners already married and living separately. 7. It is further submitted that due to the act of the first respondent, the petitioner lost his job, on the complaint made to the Management when he was about to be terminated, he made a decent exit by resigning from the job and now working in a private firm with a meagre salary of Rs.7,000/-. The first respondent wanted the first petitioner to act as per the dictums of her family members. Whenever the first petitioner showed his individuality, he was man handled and severely beaten, in some instances, even muscle men were brought in and the entire family members of the petitioners were beaten badly. It is further submitted that as regards the petitioners 2 to 6, no protection order was sought against them. As regards the first petitioner, the Sub Court already given a finding and further, 20 sovereigns of jewels presented during the marriage was also taken back when she left the matrimonial home which is not disputed in the other proceedings. The judgment of the Sub Court is now under appeal in C.M.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2019 before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, wherein the sridhana articles issue can be decided. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 09.03.2008 as per the Hindu customs. During the marriage, 40 sovereigns of gold jewels were given to the first respondent, 10 sovereigns of gold jewels was presented to the first petitioner, for purchase of two wheeler Rs.60,000/- cash was given, further, Rs.3 lakhs worth household articles were also given. After the marriage, both the first petitioner and the first respondent were living at No.26, Malai Nagar, Acharapakkam. Further, apart from the sridhana articles, a Tata Indica car was demanded and presented to the first petitioner. Out of their wedlock, the second respondent was born on 18.12.2008 and the third respondent was born on 31.08.2010. After the marriage, both the first petitioner and the first respondent were living at No.26, Malai Nagar, Acharapakkam. Further, apart from the sridhana articles, a Tata Indica car was demanded and presented to the first petitioner. Out of their wedlock, the second respondent was born on 18.12.2008 and the third respondent was born on 31.08.2010. He further submitted that slowly all the petitioners joined together, harassed the first respondent and forced her to get landed properties and were regularly making one demand or other. In one of the accident, the first respondent was doused with kerosene and attempted to set fire and she lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Melmaruvathur. When the first petitioner appeared for enquiry, he gave an undertaking that thereafter he would treat the first respondent properly and hence, the complaint was withdrawn. On the contrary, she further subjected her to harassment, in one of the incident, the first respondent was undressed, beaten brutally and she sustained blood injuries. Again she lodged a complaint and stayed with her parents. Further, the first respondent was deliberately not allowed to attend any of the family functions. The petitioners were keen and forcing the first respondent to settle 33 cents of her family property, settled to her by her mother and all steps taken for reconciliation failed. The first petitioner not only chased her away from the matrimonial home but also failed to take care of his children, neglected to maintain them, hence, the first respondent filed a petition in M.C.No.2 of 2014. The Trial Court on perusing the evidence and materials given protection orders. In the appeal, the protection order was modified directing the first petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the respondents and return back 51.25 sovereigns of gold jewels which was retained by the petitioners. But the first petitioner suppressing his real income and projecting as though he is earning lesser income, failed to pay the maintenance amount. Further, as regards the dismissal of H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2014 and allowing H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2013, the first respondent filed appeals in C.M.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2019, which is pending before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu and as regards the residential protection, the Trial Court already given a protection order. Further, the petitioners 2 to 6 are instrumental and abetting the first petitioner in causing harassment and subjecting the first respondent to cruelty. Further, the petitioners 2 to 6 are instrumental and abetting the first petitioner in causing harassment and subjecting the first respondent to cruelty. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this revision petition. 9. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials placed before this Court, it is not in dispute that the first petitioner and the first respondent are close relatives even before the marriage, there seems to be some dispute which is amplified due to the egoistic fight between the families. The family status, background and their financial capabilities are known to each other. The first respondent's family appears to be better placed, compared to the petitioners family. As regards the protection with regard to residence, the Trial Court had already given a protection order, in respect of Rs.60,000/- cash given for purchase of two wheeler and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- which was ordered by the Trial Court, was set aside by the Lower Appellate Court and against which, no appeal filed. Further, the order of the Trial Court to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance was modified by the Lower Appellate Court to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month considering the financial capability, earning capacity of the first petitioner and way of life, further directed the petitioners to hand over 51.25 sovereigns of gold jewels to the first respondent. Further, on perusal of the judgment in H.M.O.P.No.39 of 2013 and H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2014 wherein specific and categorical finding given, which is now pending before the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu in C.M.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2019 . In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that as regards the claim and counter claim for the sridhana articles, it would be appropriate to be decided by the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu in C.M.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2019. 10. Since in respect of petitioners 2 to 6, no relief was sought for, the petitioners 2 to 6 are hereby discharged and relieved from all the proceedings. 11. Further, in respect of the first petitioner, the order of the Lower Appellate Court directing him to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondents as maintenance is hereby confirmed. 12. 11. Further, in respect of the first petitioner, the order of the Lower Appellate Court directing him to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondents as maintenance is hereby confirmed. 12. In the result, the judgment, dated 29.10.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District in M.C.No.2 of 2014 modified by the judgment dated 03.08.2017 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu in C.A.No.45 of 2015 is further modified and confirmed with regard to payment of maintenance alone. The first petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as maintenance as directed by the Lower Appellate Court from the date of order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam, Kancheepuram District in M.C.No.2 of 2014. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.