1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Crl.R.C.(MD)No.143 of 2011 Thanka Nadachy .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Muthuvel 2.Regupathi 3.Suyambu Nadachy .. Respondents Prayer: Criminal revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and enhance the sentence of the imprisonment imposed upon the respondents in the judgment, dated 28.12.2010, passed in C.C.No.99/1990 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Padmanabhapuram. For Petitioner : Mr.J.John Jayakumar O R D E R This criminal revision is preferred seeking enhancement of sentence against the respondents/accused made in C.C.No.99/1990 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram. 2. The first respondent was the husband of the petitioner/defacto complaint and he was charged of offence under Section 494 I.P.C. The respondents 2 and 3 were charged of offence under Section 494 r/w 109 I.P.C. One other accused was acquitted by the lower Court. The first respondent/husband was sentenced to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment, while the respondents 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the respondents have moved an appeal against the judgement and sentence passed against them. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite arriving at a finding of conviction given, the admitted position of entering upon a second marriage by the first respondent, during the life time of the petitioner/wife, the trial Court has imposed a very nominal sentence. 4. On perusal of the judgment of the lower Court, we find that such Court has taken into consideration the contention of the accused that despite repeated efforts made towards restitution of conjugal rights, the petitioner has been unyielding, that even though the document registered before the Sub Registrar recording therein a divorce, was invalid in the eye of law, such document had been produced before the concerned Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 wherein maintenance was sought and no objection had been raised to the alleged second marriage despite the petitioner having been a stones throw away. Taking such factors into consideration, the lower Court, even while holding the respondent guilty, has acted appropriately and passed sentence for four months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment, while the respondents 2 and 3 were sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one months simple imprisonment. 5. We are not able to hold that the finding of the lower Court is totally unjustified and accordingly, this revision shall stand dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram 2. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.R.C.(MD)No.143 of 2011 24.02.2011 vsm RJ/23.3.11 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/