LAWS(MAD)-2007-4-115

ARIVUKANNI Vs. SARAVANAN

Decided On April 25, 2007
ARIVUKANNI Appellant
V/S
SARAVANAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 21. 1. 2004 in C. A. No. 74 of 2003 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC. NO. I), Chengalput, reversing the judgment dated 5. 11. 2003 made in C. C. No. 152 of 2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mathurantham.

(2.) THIS Revision has been preferred against the judgment in c. A. No. 74 of 2003on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FTC. No. I,) Chengalput. The complaint preferred by P. W. 1-Arivukanni, the wife of the accused, was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, G-3 Chittamoor police Station under Crime No. 27/2002 under Section 498 (A) IPC. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mathuranthagam, as C. C. No. 152 of 2002 and on appearance of the accused copies under Section 207 of Cr. P. C. , were furnished to the accused and when the charges under Section 498 (A) IPC was explained to the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.

(3.) P. W. 2 is the father of P. W. 1. According to him, the registered marriage between P. W. 1 and the accused took place on 15. 3. 2001 and that no one from the accused's family attended the marriage and after the marriage both P. W. 1 and the accused lived happily at Chethupakkam and that after the marriage P. W. 1 had delivered a male child on 21. 6. 2002. According to p. W. 2, the accused had left P. W. 1 in his (P. W. 2) house on one day at 1. 30 am and that P. W. 1 had informed him (P. W. 2) that the accused had demanded rs. 1,00,000/- to meet the expenses for his heart surgery. He would further depose that thereafter, he went to the accused and requested him to live with his daughter P. W. 1 amicably. But the accused had refused to take back P. W. 1 and that he convened a panchayat for amicable settlement between P. W. 1 and the accused, but the accused had not heeded to the advice of the panchayators and that he took P. w. 1 to the police station and the complaint was preferred by his daughter P. w. 1.