1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :08.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD) No.14 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 Noor Mohamed : Revision Petitioner/A1 Vs. Balkees Beevi : Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C praying to call for the records in Cr.M.P.No.8795 of 2010 in C.C.No.430 of 2010 dated 28.12.2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and to set aside the same. For petitioner : Mr.S.Muthal Raj For respondent : Mr.M.Seeni Sulthan O R D E R The revision petitioner is the respondent in Crl.M.P.No.8795 of 2010, which was filed by his mother under Sections 20(1)(a)(c)(3)(4) (5)(6) and 23(1) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 2. In Crl.M.P.No.8795 of 2010, it is averred by the respondent herein that immediately on the demise of her husband on 10.02.2009, the petitioner herein barged into the premises and also started collecting rental income out of the shop and let in some portion of the properties. It is further stated in the said petition that the properties are the subject matter of mortgage with Indian Overseas Bank and consequently in view of the illegal acts committed by the petitioner herein, the respondent herein is not in a position to discharge the debts and hence, the respondent herein prays for appropriate order under the above said provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 3. The Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul on taking into consideration the averments made in the petition and also the objections raised by the petitioner herein found that the civil litigation in O.S.No.999 of 2010 is pending on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Trichirappalli and the civil litigation is not likely to end in the near future and also taking into consideration the plight of the respondent herein has ordered the petition, permitting the respondent herein to collect rent from Shop No.13/411 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 at Kannudaiyanpatti Village, Manaparai Taluk, Trichy District and also directed the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- and further directed him to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month till the disposal of the case. Challenging the vires of the said order, the respondent in the said petition has preferred this revision. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly a civil litigation is pending, wherein the title and possession pertaining to the properties are in question and therefore, the lower Court ought not to have ordered the application in favour of the respondent herein and prayed for setting aside the said order. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is none other than the mother of the revision petitioner and immediately on the demise of her husband, she was thrown out of the home and the petitioner herein illegally trespassed and started collecting rental income and consequently the respondent is put to great hardship and loss and she is left with no income or support and hence, for the above reasons prays for the dismissal of the criminal revision case. 6. This Court heard the rival submissions and perused the materials filed in the form typed set of papers and additional typed set of papers. 7. Admittedly, the properties in question stand in the name of the respondent herein. However, the petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.999 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Trichy praying for the reliefs of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property in question and permanent injunction against the respondent herein from interfering with his possession. Till the suit is decided in favour of the revision petitioner, it cannot be said that he has acquired right in the said properties. It is pertinent to point out that at this juncture, the respondent is none other than the mother of the petitioner and as a son, the petitioner is duty bound to maintain her mother, who has lost her husband. Since the impugned order is an interim order by way of interim measure, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the said order. Hence, this Court finds no merits in the revision. 8. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are also dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to establish his right in the civil suit in O.S.No.999 of 2010, pending on the file of Sub Court, Trichy in accordance with law. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To: 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. 2. -Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul. 3. The Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. +1 CC to Mr.S.Muthalraj, Advocate (SR.No.11728) Crl.R.C.(MD) No.14 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 08.03.2011 sj NSV/14.3.11/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/