Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1209 (MAD)

Deepaa v. R. Thangakumaran

2025-02-28

R.VIJAYAKUMAR

body2025
ORDER : The respondent in the Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2023 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi is the revision petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C seeking permission of the Court to mark 18 documents before the Appellate Court. This application came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed. (A) Factual Matrix: 3. The revision petitioner herein has filed D.V.O.P.No.7 of 2019 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tenkasi seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19 and 22 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 4. The respondent herein had filed a counter disputing the allegations and seeking dismissal of the complaint. 5. The trial Court after considering the submissions on either side, had allowed the application directing protection under Section 18 of the Act. The Court had further directed payment of a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife as monthly maintenance and further direction was issued for payment of entire arrears within a period of one month. The husband and the father-in-law were directed to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- as compensation. Challenging the said order, the husband and the father-in-law had filed Crl.A.No.90 of 2023 before the Additional District and Sessions Cum Fast Track Court, Tenkasi. 6. Pending appeal, the appellant had filed Crl.M.P.No.794 of 2023 under Section 391 of Cr.P.C seeking permission of the Court to let in additional oral and documentary evidence. This application came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court on 22.01.2024. Challenging the same, the husband and the father-in-law had filed CRP(MD).No.372 of 2024 before this Court. This Court found that the respondents in DVOP have not participated in the proceedings before the trial Court citing lack of jurisdiction. This Court had further found that the request for adjournment was rejected by the trial Court and a detailed order has been passed allowing DVOP and granting various directions. This Court was pleased to allow the revision petition on 18.09.2024 with a direction to the First Appellate Court to permit the husband and the father-in-law to let in evidence and for production of relevant documents. 7. The First Appellate Court was directed to take into account the evidence adduced on either side. This Court was pleased to allow the revision petition on 18.09.2024 with a direction to the First Appellate Court to permit the husband and the father-in-law to let in evidence and for production of relevant documents. 7. The First Appellate Court was directed to take into account the evidence adduced on either side. The husband and the father-in-law were directed to lead oral evidence and the respondent was granted liberty to cross examine the witnesses. After the order of this Court in CRP(MD).No. 372 of 2024, the wife was cross examined in full on 24.10.2024. Thereafter, the wife had filed Cr.M.P.No.915 of 2024 under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of C.P.C to receive 18 documents. This application was stoutly resisted by the husband and the father-in-law. After hearing either parties, the said application was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 22.11.2024. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed. 8. When the revision petition came up for hearing, this Court pointed out that liberty was granted by this Court in CRP(MD).No.372 of 2024 only to the husband and the father-in-law alone, to let in oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, whether the wife would also be entitled to let in evidence before the Appellate Court is doubtful. The wife/revision petitioner thereafter brought up CRP(MD).No.372 of 2024 before the concerned Judge for clarification. The learned Judge by his order dated 17.02.2025 has clarified that he had granted liberty to both sides to adduce further evidence. 9. In the light of the above said factual background, this Court would like to consider the submissions made on either side. (B) Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side: 10. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, these documents relate to receipts for purchase of jewellery and bank transactions of the petitioner which would be required to establish the fact that the petitioner/wife has incurred so much of expenses to meet out the marriage expenses and purchase of jewellery. These documents are necessary to support the prayer of the wife seeking compensation under Section 22 of the Act. He had further contended that immediately after cross examination was completed before the Appellate Court, this application has been filed without any further delay. Since there was a delay in procurement of these documents, these documents could not be produced before the trial Court. 11. He had further contended that immediately after cross examination was completed before the Appellate Court, this application has been filed without any further delay. Since there was a delay in procurement of these documents, these documents could not be produced before the trial Court. 11. The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that these documents are bank documents, income tax returns, High Court orders and legal notices exchanged between the parties. Therefore, there may not be any dispute with regard to the admissibility of the documents. He had further contended that either by recalling of PW1 or through any other witnesses on the said of the complainant, these documents could be marked. 12. The learned Senior Counsel had further contended that so far the husband and the father-in-law have not let in any evidence before the First Appellate Court pursuant to the order of this Court in CRP(MD).No. 372 of 2024. In such circumstances, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, in case, permission is granted for reception of documents. He had further contended that now the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 17.02.2025 made in CRP(MD).No.372 of 2024 has clarified that the wife would also be entitled to adduce further evidence, there cannot be any legal impediment for the First Appellate Court for reception of these documents. Unless these documents are received in evidence, the complainant would be put to great prejudice. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband had contended that the complainant was fully examined before the trial Court itself. She had the opportunity to mark those documents. However, she has not chosen to avail those opportunities. The husband who did not get opportunity before the trial Court was granted an opportunity by the High Court in CRP(MD).No.372 of 2024 to produce oral and documentary evidence before the First Appellate Court. Therefore, the complainant cannot take advantage of the fact that the husband has been permitted to let in oral evidence and try to let in additional evidence before the First Appellate Court. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that the present application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C is not maintainable without seeking to recall PW1. He had further contended that the documents which are sought to be produced before the Court have no relevance whatsoever to the complaint lodged by the wife. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that the present application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C is not maintainable without seeking to recall PW1. He had further contended that the documents which are sought to be produced before the Court have no relevance whatsoever to the complaint lodged by the wife. These documents relate to the statement of accounts of the complainant, her husband and her father-in-law which has nothing to do with the complaint lodged by the wife. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had further contended that all these documents relate to the period prior to the filing of the complaint. Unless the wife is able to satisfactorily explain why these documents were not produced before the trial Court, the said document cannot be received as evidence before the First Appellate Court. When she has not chosen to mark these documents before the trial Court, a second opportunity cannot be granted to the wife to produce these documents in order to fill up the lacuna. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents herein had further contended that the documents which are sought to be marked on the side of the respondents related to payment of around Rs.99,00,000/- by the husband to the wife. Since the husband did not get an opportunity before the trial Court, they filed an application before the First Appellate Court and after getting orders from the Hon'ble High Court, they are now attempting to mark those documents. All the documents produced on the side of the husband are relevant to defend the proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 12 of the Act. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents had further pointed out the findings of the trial Court wherein it is held that the complainant who is having custody of the document has not given any legally acceptable reason for not producing these documents before the trial Court. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 18. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records. (C) Discussion: 19. The present revision petition has been filed by the wife challenging the rejection of her application for reception of additional documents before the First Appellate Court which arises under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 20. 18. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the material records. (C) Discussion: 19. The present revision petition has been filed by the wife challenging the rejection of her application for reception of additional documents before the First Appellate Court which arises under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 20. The respondent in the complaint who did not get full opportunity before the trial Court, after suffering an order, had filed Cr.M.P.No.794 of 2023 before the Appellate Court for reception of documents. This application came to be dismissed by the trial Court. However, the said order was reversed by this Court in CRP(MD).No.372 of 2024 permitting the husband to mark the relevant documents. Pursuant to the said order, the wife who was not cross examined by the husband before the trial Court, was cross examined before the First Appellate Court on 24.10.2024. Immediately, thereafter on 28.10.2024, the present application has been filed by the wife in Cr.M.P.No.915 of 2024 seeking permission of the Court to receive additional documents. 21. This Court in its order dated 18.09.2024 in CRP(MD).No.372 of 2024 has directed the husband to let in oral and documentary evidence before the First Appellate Court. This order was clarified by the concerned Judge on 17.02.2025 to the effect that both the parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the wife would also be entitled to let in additional evidence before the First Appellate Court as per order in CRP(MD).No.372 of 2024. 22. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/husband that these documents which were available with the wife had not been filed along with the complaint. Nor it was produced at the time of deposition. No acceptable reason has been stated for filing these documents for the first appeal stage except contending that there was a delay in getting these documents. A further objection has been raised that these documents do not have any relevancy for disposal of the appeal. 23. A perusal of the documents which are sought to be marked on the side of the husband through Cr.M.P.No.794 of 2023 reveals that some of the documents relate to the financial transactions and the payment made to the wife. These documents have been introduced for the purposes of defending the prayer seeking compensation. 23. A perusal of the documents which are sought to be marked on the side of the husband through Cr.M.P.No.794 of 2023 reveals that some of the documents relate to the financial transactions and the payment made to the wife. These documents have been introduced for the purposes of defending the prayer seeking compensation. Therefore, it is quite natural that the wife would also like to file the documents relating to the financial transactions in order to defend the order granting compensation to her. It is no doubt true that these documents were not filed before the trial Court. The husband has so far not opened his side of evidence. In such circumstances, the reception of these documents by the First Appellate Court would not cause any prejudice to the respondents herein. 24. This Court in CRP(MD).No.372 of 2024, in its order dated 18.09.2024 has categorically found that the appeal is a continuation of original proceedings. In such circumstances, permitting the complainant to mark some documents before the First Appellate Court, especially when a second opportunity has been granted to the husband, cannot be objected to. 25. As far as the issue relating to the relevancy of the documents sought to be marked is concerned, so far the said stage has not arrived. As and when PW1 or any one of the complainant side witnesses attempt to mark the documents, the relevancy could very well be questioned by the respondent herein. 26. As far as the submissions relating to the procedural irregularity in filing the present application is concerned, mere quoting of wrong provision of law would not be a legal impediment for granting the relief, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to. 27. The husband had not enclosed the relevant documents along with his counter and by virtue of the order of this Court, he is going to mark those documents now before the First Appellate Court. Similarly, the wife who had not enclosed these documents along with her complaint, is now attempting to mark these documents before the First Appellate Court. 28. In view of Section 28 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, C.P.C is not applicable to the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Act and only Cr.P.C is applicable. Similarly, the wife who had not enclosed these documents along with her complaint, is now attempting to mark these documents before the First Appellate Court. 28. In view of Section 28 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, C.P.C is not applicable to the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Act and only Cr.P.C is applicable. Section 391 of Cr.P.C empowers the Appellate Court to take further evidence if it thinks, additional evidence to be necessary, for the reasons to be recorded. The Appellate Court can take evidence by itself also. In such circumstances, when an additional opportunity has been granted to the husband to mark certain documents before the First Appellate Court, it would be in the interest of justice to permit the wife also to mark additional documents before the First Appellate Court. Therefore, this Court does not find any procedural irregularity in filing Crl.M.P.No.915 of 2024. 29. In view of the above said deliberations, the orders impugned in the revision petition is set aside and the revision petition stands allowed. The documents annexed to the petition may be received by the Court and may be marked through PW1 or through any other witnesses on the side of the complainant subject to proof and relevancy. 30. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed to the extent as stated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 31. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Tenkasi is directed to dispose of the appeal on or before 31.07.2025.