M. Srinivasan, J. - (1.) The appeal is by the State Government against the judgment of the High Court of Madras setting aside that of the additional Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and acquitting the respondent of the charges under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. The Special Leave Petition was filed earlier by the brother of the deceased Nagammal against the same judgment of the High Court. After granting permission to the petitioner to file the S.L.P., notice was ordered by this Court in the S.L.P. and later directed to be tagged on to the above appeal.
(2.) The respondent was working as Assistant Professor of Mathematics in Udumalpet College. He married Nagammal on 12-3-76. After marriage, he got transferred to a college in Tiruppur. Nagammal became an Assistant Professor in Vellalar College, Erode. Though the respondent was highly educated, he was insisting on her resigning her job and living with him as house wife. Besides, he along with his parents was making repeated demands for dowry in the shape of household articles. As regards their married life, the High Court has observed thus: "It is true that the family life of Nagammal proved to be miserable. From the beginning there was misunderstanding between the couple and only for short intermittent periods they had lived together. Besides the jewels and cash received by him at the time of marriage, the appellant had been insisting that his wife should bring household articles necessary to set up a new family establishment at Tirupur. While the parents of the appellant were adamant that her daughter-in-law should resign her job, Nagammal very much liked to be a working woman. It is the appellant who initiated divorce proceedings against the deceased. A reading of Ex. P-2 the counter filed by Nagammal would go to show that even though she was not prepared to quit the job, she was equally anxious that she should live with her husband happily. Her statement in the counter that she had not done any wrong to her husband and that she begs him to forget and forgive if he had enter tained or found any mistake committed by her reveals her state of mind."
(3.) In the petition for divorce referred to by the High Court in the above passage, the respondent had stated that his wife left his house on 8-7-76 with her father and alleged that on 14-8-76, her father and brothers came to his house along with her and by using force and violence took away with them jewels worth about 351/2 sovereigns after attacking him and his mother. He introduced an innuendo in Para 4 of his petition as follows: "The marriage for her was obviously intended to enable the respondent to go about with greater freedom as a married women." That discloses the 'cynic' in him.;