IN THE COURT OF XVII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SAIDAPET, CHENNAI
REF: Cr.No.23/2007 – W25, All Woman Police Station -Complaint preferred by Mrs.Grahalakshmi Prashanth against Mr.T.Prashanth and 3 others –
Report U/s.173(2) of Cr. P.C.
State by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Dowry Cell, Thousand Lights, Chennai.
Mr.T.Prashanth & 3 Others
Mrs. Grahalakshmi Prashant w/o Mr. T.Prashanth, residing at No.32, South Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017, preferred a complaint against Mr. T.Prashanth (A1), Mr. S.Thiagarajan (A2), Mrs.Shanthi Thiagarajan (A3) and Ms. T. Preethi Thiagarajan (A4) for an alleged offence of dowry demand, cruelty and harassment and the same has been registered as Cr.No.23 of 2007, u/s 498 A of I.P.C. and Sec. 4 & 6(2) of D.P.Act, on the file of the W-25, All Woman Police Station, T.Nagar on 14-09-2007 as per orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Madras in Crl.O.P.No.24815 of 2007.
The above case was taken up for investigation. All the accused obtained Interim Bail from the Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in Crl.M.P. No.4236/2007 and the interim bail was made absolute in Crl.O.P.No.7925/2007. Mrs.Grahalakshmi in her complaint dated 07-05-2007 had stated that she was married to Mr.T.Prashanth, son of Mr.S.Thiagarajan on 01-09-2005 at Mayor Ramanathan Chettiar Marriage Hall, at Chennai as per Hindu rites and customs. The engagement was conducted at Taj Coromandel on 10-06-2005. The marriage was conducted at the expense of her parents. After the marriage the complainant lived in a joint family at No.21, Ganapathy Colony, Cenotaph Road II lane, Chennai 600018. Her husband was not intimate with her. She was a pure vegetarian till her marriage and she was forced by her mother-in-law into eating non-vegetarian because she did not bring all her share of ancestral property and family property. Her in-laws would pretend to be friendly when her husband was at home and when she complained to her husband, he advised her to comply their demands. On 15-12-2005, her husband and her in-laws demanded for the settlement of properties in her name and her husband. Mrs.Grahalakshmi was kept in solitary confinement. She was not allowed to communicate with any one and not permitted to mingle with anyone.
Always she had to be inside the bedroom allotted to them in the first floor. She was not allowed to even talk to her parents through phone except for brief intervals under supervision of her in-laws. She was allowed to attend her cousin’s wedding on 15.9.05 only after begging and pleading. The accused treated her as a dirt. Mrs.Grahalakshmi’s sister-in-law interfered with her personal life. She was not allowed to bolt the bedroom. She was informed that unless she brings all her immoveable and moveable properties partitioned and make them available for the disposal of her father-in-law, she would not be allowed to live in peace. She stated that her husband and herself were invited to Malaysia on 5-10-2005 as a Wedding Gift and she visited Courtmalai Pillaiar Temple for Pooja on 9-10-2005 at her father’s expense. Her husband demanded electronic items such as LCD, TV, DVD Player, Home Theatre System, CDs and DVDs as Dowry, this resulted in huge expenses for her family. She stated that on 11-10-2006, her husband’s parents visited her parental home and demanded dowry when she was at Malaysia. After her return from Malaysia her in-laws behaved very strange and indifferently. Even her husband behaved in unruly manner with her father. The “Thaali Kodi Changing” and “Thalai Deepavali” functions were denied because her family did not settle the dowry is~ue, including her share of family property and ancestral property. ;. ie was threatened that if she insist on her family hosting the functions, she would have to leave the matrimonial house.
Mrs.Grahalakshmi became pregnant and her inlaws were not happy and insisted to partition the property before giving birth to the child. They doubted the paternity of the child and threatened her. She had a dermoid cyst of 9 cms, therefore she required complete bed rest and her husband did not take care. She was abused verbally by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and she was subjected to mental agony and torture. On 1-1-2006, her husband insisted her to go to her parents home, since he would be away on film shooting till June 2006, and also that his mother was not in a condition to take care of her. She went to her parents house on 2-1-2006, she left behind valuable expensive jewellery, wedding gift received by her along with her passport and driving licence. Her husband did not write or invite her over phone to rejoin and he abruptly stopped communicating from 15-1-2006 to 24-11-2006, first day of court hearing. She was not allowed to inform her pregnancy to her parents and was prevented from making any phone calls to her parents. The following day to day use items and articles were left behind her matrimonial house, when she left:
i) Original Passport;
ii) Original Driving Licence;
iii) 42″ LCD TV;
iv) Home Theatre;
v) DVD Recorder;
vi) Sony Digital Camera;
vii) Gold Rings with Diamonds two in number;
viii) Bracelet with Ruby Earrings with Diamonds;
ix) One Sovereign gold coins;
x) Hand Bag with cash Rs.45,000/- ;
xi) Silver Bucket worth Rs.70,000/-;
xii) Shoes and Chappels 8 pairs;
xiii) Play Station with 100 VCDs/DVDs;
xiv) Logitech Optical Mouse;
xv) Movie DVDs 50 numbers;
xvi) A caricature of her husband and herself;
xvii) Silk sarees and daily wear sarees 50 number;
xviii) Jewellery presented by her husband and his family. She was sufficiently provided with jewels by her parents and all the jewelleries that were given to her by her in-laws were kept in her matrimonial home. Her mental agony and anguish aggravated when her husband and his parents did not enquire her well being and did not visit her child. On 31-7-2006, when she tried to contact her husband to inform the arrival of the baby, she came to know that her matrimonial house was sold without her knowledge. They shifted their residence to Old No.7, New No.8, Sterling Road, II Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34 and several emails, mobile phone calls, SMS and letters written by her was returned as “NO SUCH PERSON”. Her husband filed a petition in the Family Court for child visitation, he has not pressed for order and neither her husband nor his parents visited the child, all because of demand of dowry. She had not claimed all her articles but only passport and driving licence, but her husband denied the presence of the documents at home. Her husband informed her over phone to come to Five Star Hotel only to stress the demand of dowry, but she insisted that she would come to her house or his house. On 1-5-2007, she visited her husband’s house at 14.00 hours to rejoin, but she was informed by some one that she was not welcomed. She stated that her only intention to go to matrimonial home to live with her husband provided her in-laws and her husband do not make any alleged demand of dowry but the attitude of her husband and her family members were to settle the dowry first and then only she is welcomed. Therefore she requested to register a case and investigate the same. The I.O. contacted the complainant Mrs. Grahalakshmi on 06.11.2007 over phone for her availability at her residence for examining her and to record her statement under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. The Complainant stated that since her father was admitted in Hospital, she was not in a fit state to give her statement and requested the I.O. to give her sometime.
Thereafter the I.O. had reminded her on several occasions and also he served a notice to the complainant on 9/1/2008 to give her statement within 10 days of receipt of the notice, since she had taken more than 65 days from the date of registering the complaint. The Complainant sent a letter by RPAD on 22/1/08, seeking 8 weeks time for giving statement, since her father passed away and the rituals were not over.
The Complainant Mrs. Grahalakshmi on 19/03/2008 sent her written statement U/s.161(3) to the I.O. and he had personally examined her on 22/4/08 and her statement was recorded. In her oral and written statement in addition to the complaint, she had stated that the marriage was arranged one through her aunt, Mrs. Chithra Rangabashyam, wife of Dr.Rangabashyam, who is well known to the family of Mr.Thiagarajan. When the horoscope of hers and Mr.Prashanth were matched, Mr.Thiagarajan approached Dr.Rangabashyam and his wife to know the details of assets of Mr. Dhanasekar, the father of the complainant. Mrs. Chithra Rangabashyam approached her brother to furnish the details of assets, jewellery and other particulars. But Mr. Dhanasekar told her that it will be informed at the appropriate time. She stated that even before the marriage the parents of her husband demanded LCD TV and household electronics. She was subjected to dental check up and the dentist certified her teeth were in good condition. The engagement was held at Taj Coromandel and Mr.Prashanth insisted for non-vegetarian at
Golden Dragon Restaurant, and her father incurred heavy expenditure.
In the marriage Mr.Thiagarajan did not participate in ceremonies and also she was not asked to lit the lamp in Pooja Room but in the living room. She further complained that soon after the marriage, when she went to her in-laws house, Mr.Prashanth’s bed room was not ready and the toilet was very worse. She was forced to stay in the living room. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to harass her for not bringing enough jewellery, sarees and Dowry. Servants were not allowed to wash her clothes and to clean her toilet. She had to clean it on her own, and even the toiletries have to be sent from her parent’s house. She was allergic to milk, hence her parents sent the milk powder to her. Her clothes were sent to her parent’s house through their brothers, who used to visit her at weekends and return the clothes washed and ironed. Later this was stopped on the objection of her mother-in-law. When her birth day, her mother-in-law gave some gifts to Mr.Prashanth to give to her, but Mr.Prashanth did not give it to her. She had stopped eating non-vegetarian to fulfil a vow to visit Courtmalai Pillayar Temple at Malaysia. But her mother-in-law forced her to eat Non-Vegetarian and this has caused her father to be very angry with her in-laws and that is why, he had not accepted the demand of settlement of properties. Her mother-in-law was not happy with her for not bringing her jewellery and her personal belongings after the marriage. So her mother-in-law ill treated her and ridiculed her in front of her father-in-law ana sister-in-law. She was not allowed to speak to her parents and she was instructed not to allow her parents or brothers to visit her. She also alleged that she was not allowed to accompany her husband to shootings. She was not allowed to speak to her husband privately and always her mother-in-law will be staying with them and even she was not allowed to lock her bed room door Mr.Prashanth did not take care about her and he left for shooting in the morning and returned home after mid-night. She was asked to do all manual works including washing of her clothes and servants are not allowed to wash her clothes. Her father gave her a mobile and sim card to her but Mr.Prashanth told her to not to use the sim and he gave another sim to her and gave her instructions to speak only incoming calls and should not make outgoing calls since he was under financial stress. Whenever her in-laws ieave the house, she was locked inside the house and the watchman was informed not to open the door. When her family members visit her, the watchman told them that she was not in the house. Her brothers were made to wait outside the gate for long period and only after obtaining permission from her mother-in-law, she was allowed to speak to her brothers. She further complained that when their family went to Tirupathi, only one room was booked and she was not allowed to sleep and made to sit in a chair the whole night and her husband and her-in-laws were sleeping in one bed. Further she stated that her father-in-law demanded money from her father as Dowry. She also stated that after marriage she took all her personal belongings along with the following jewellery in 3 big trolley bags:
i) Gold Hip Belt
ii) 3 Gold Earrings
iv) Gold Plet for the hair
v) Diamond Necklace
vi) Ear ring
ix) Five head chain in good and kundam works
x) Gold Earring
xi) Goid Jimiki
xii) Gold Mattal
xiii) Navarathna Set ear ring
xvi) Gold Bangles plain 10
xvii) Gold Bangles enamel work 4 pairs
xviii) Ruby Bangles
xix) Emerald Bangles
xx) Bracelets – Plain Gold Ruby
She complained that Mr.Thiagarajan and Mrs.Thiagarajan met her parents when she was in Malaysia along with her husband, they demanded her father to settle the properties in the joint name of Mr.Prashanth and Mrs.Grahalaksmi, for which her father told them that he knows when to settle the property. After she became pregnant, she was sent to her parents house and thereafter none of her in-laws contacted her even her husband did not reply to her phone calls or SMS. Even after delivery of male child, they did not visit her or seen the baby. Mr.Prashanth sold the matrimonial house without her knowledge. Mr.Prashanth and her family members sent her to her parents house on the pretext of shooting. After that he never spoke to her and deserted her. The complainant and her husband Mr.Prashanth went to Malaysia and her father purchased tickets for the flight. Later she came to know that it was sponsored by Mr.Dato Samivelu, There her husband demanded for a, 42″ LCD TV and other expensive electronic gadgets, so she rang, her father and he arranged for lakhs of Rupees at Malaysia and she ought all items as demanded by her husband and her mother-in-law over phone. Her mother contacted her mother-in-law for “THALI KODI” changing function and suggested three auspicious days for which she did not give any confirmation. They did not conduct any functions and they replaced the “Thali” in front of their old aunt.
Also when her mother called over the phone to invite Mr. Prashanth for “Thalai Deepavali”, her mother-in-law shouted at her mother, why she is calling over phone as though she is in America and told her to visit personally. When her mother personally invited them they refused to send her also they demanded a new car for Mr.Prashanth. The complainant conceived and her pregnancy was confirmed on 25-12-05. She was not allowed to inform her parents. Even her mother-in-law suggested to abort the baby since Mrs.Grahalkshmi is having dermoid cyst in her uterus, which may affect the growth of the baby. On 1.1.2006 Mr.Prashanth informed Mrs.Grahalakshmi that he is going for a shooting and will return only after 6 months and till such time, she must go to her parents house and instructed her to ask her family members to take her. She informed her mother on 1.1.2006 and on 2.1.2006, her brother came to Mr.Prashanth’s house and took her at a fixed time, which her mother-in-law told her as auspicious. After 2.1.2006, no one called her or visited her and even Prashanth did not reply to her calls and SMS. She gave birth to a male child on 31-07-2006 and called Mr.Prashanth to inform the same. He did not pick up the phone. When her brothers visited her matrimonial house, they were informed that it was sold without her knowledge and the whereabouts of Mr.Prashanth and their family was not known. The birth of the child was published in the Deccan Chronicle. Her husband did not visit her or bothered to visit his new born child. Later she received a summon from the Family Court to appear in OP NO.2721/2006 filed by her husband for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and she appeared in the above case and expressed her willingness to join her husband immediately, but Mr.Prashanth is not willing to take her and sought long adjournments. She alleged that Mr.Prashanth had filed a false complaint against her for bigamy that she was married to one Mr. Narayanan Venu Prasad before their marriage and the marriage is still subsisting and he produced forged documents. He also publicised the same in the media to defame her. Mr.Prashanth withdrew the petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and filed a new petition for declaring the Marriage as Null and Void. She stated that since her passport was not returned to her, she could not take her ailing father abroad for best medical treatment, thereby she had lost her father and alleged that r.er father died only because of Mr.Prashanth. Hence she filed this complaint to punish her husband, her father-in-law and mother-in-law for the dowry demand, cruelty and harassment and also requested to return the valuable items left at her matrimonial house. Similarly Mrs.Sivagama Sundari, mother of Mrs. Grahalakshmi in her statement had stated that in addition to Mrs.Grahalakshmi’s complaint she added that the demand of dowry was raised by Mr.Thiagarajan before marriage and Mr.Prashanth was very upset and walked out of the room. After marriage, her daughter was not allowed to speak to them. Mr.Thiagarajan and Mrs.Shanthi Thiagarajan demanded Rs.8 crores as dowry. Also they demanded a car for Deepavali. Mr.Nagarajan brother of Mrs.Grahalakshmi in his statement stated that after marriage of his sister, she was not taken care by her in-laws and no one was talking to her. She informed him over phone about this. Mr.Thiagarajan and Mrs.Thiagarajan visited his father and demanded Rs.8.00 Crores as dowry. On 2-1-2006, as per instructions of Mr.Prashanth’s family, they took his sister to their residence. After that no one spoke to his sister and even after delivery of the child they never visited. When he visited their residence, he learnt that the house was sold and the whereabouts of them was not known. Mr.Thiagarajan requested her aunt Mrs. Rangabashyam to advise Mrs.Grahalakshmi to give mutual consent divorce. He does not know about the position of court cases between them. His father and his sister attended a mediation meeting held at Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram’s office with Mrs.Manimekalai Kannan, Mrs.Jeyanthi Kannappan, but the dispute was not resolved. Mr.Ponkumar, brother of Mrs.Grahalakshmi in his statement stated that Mr.Thiagarajan demanded engagement to be held at Taj Coromandel and marriage to be held at Mayor Ramanathan Chettiar Hall. The expenses were borne by his father. Mr.Prashanth demanded costly electronic household goods at Malaysia and Mrs.Grahalakshmi’s father agreed to bear the expenditure of approximately US $ 50,000/- Mr.Thiagarajan & Mrs.Shanthi Thiagarajan demanded Rs.8.00 crores as Dowry. His sister was subjected to harassment and chased away from matrimonial house. He was shocked to note that his sister’s matrimonial house was sold for Rs.8.00 crores without her knowledge and Thiagarajan’s family had debts to the tune of Rs.80-100 Crores in the financial market. Mrs. Abirami Ponkumar, sister-in-law of Mrs. Grahalakshmi in her statement, stated the same as that of her husband. In addition to the statements of the complainant’s mother, brothers and sister-in-law, the statements of the following independent witnesses, who are associated with the case have been recorded:
1. Dr. Rangabashyam, (Complainant’s aunt’s husband)
2. Mrs. Chitralekha Rangabashyam (Aunt – Complainant’s father’s sister)
3. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Advocate
4. Mrs. Devi Palanichami (D/o Late Mandradiyar, Ex-Minister, T.N. & Family friend of Mr.Dhanasekar)
5. Mrs. Manimegalai Kannan , Social Worker & D/o Late (Muthamizh Kavalar) K.A.P.Viswanathan.
6. Mrs. ALS. Jeyanthi Kannappan (D/o Late Subbiah, I.A.S.)
7. Mrs. Viji, Cine Actress
8. Mrs. Kala, Dance Master
9. Mr. Vinayagamurthy
10. Mr. Narayanan Venu Prasad
11. Mr. Sudhir (a) Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
12. Mr. Rajesh, Advocate
13. Mr. Ambrose, Servant of Mr. Thiagarajan
14. Mrs. Kavitha, housekeeping agent
15. Dr.(MRs.).Rekha Paragal
BASED ON THE COMPLAINT A? D STATEMENTS OF WITNESSESS,
THE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Mrs. Grahalakshmi was subjected to harassment at her matrimonial house by her husband, her father-in-law, mother-in- law and sister-in-law, by not allowing to speak to her family members, visit them, etc.
2. Mr. Thiagarajan and Mrs.Thiagarajan demanded dowry for marriage before and after marriage and also demanded Rs.8.00
crores from Grahalakshmi’s father. Since this was not fulfilled by
their family, the complainant was subject to cruelty. Prashanth’s
mother demanded a car for her son.
3. She was compelled to eat non-vegetarian against her vow, for not bringing enough jeweller ‘ and dowry.
4. Mr.Prashanth demanded LCD TV and other costly household electronic goods at Malaysia as dowry and this was met by her father.
5. The complainant was driven out of her matrimonial house when she became pregnant and after 2-1-2006, neither her husband nor her in-laws spoke or met her and they had not visited the new born child also, as she did not pay the dowry and settlement of her share of property, which caused her mental agony.
6. At the time of leaving her matrimonial home, she had left behind electronic items and some jewellery, Passport, Driving Licence.
THE INVESTIGATION, ENQUIRY, STATEMENT OF INDEPENDENT WITNESSESS AND PERUSAL OF RECORDS REVEALS THE FOLLOWING FACTS:
1. DOWRY DEMAND:
There is no demand of dowry either by Mr.Thiagarajan and Mrs.Thiagarajan, either before marriage or after marriage as per the statement of Mrs.Chitralekha Rangabashyam, the aunt of Mrs.Grahalakshmi and Dr.Rangabashyam. who had arranged the marriage between Mrs.Grahalakshmi ana Mr.Prashanth. Mr. Thiagarjan had not asked Mrs. Chitra Rangabashyam about the details of the assets of Mrs. Grahalakshmi’s father either before or after marriage according to the statement of Mrs. Chitralekha Rangabashyam and Dr.Rangabashyam.
At the request of Mrs. Devi Palanichamy the mediation meeting was held on 15/10/2006 in the office of Mrs. Naiini Chidambaram, Senior Advocate. Mrs. Grahalakshmi, Mr.Dhanasekar along with Mrs. Devi Palanichamy and Mr.Thiagarajt Mrs.Shanthi Thiagarajan, Mr.Prashanth and Mrs. ALS Jeyanthi Kanappan, Mrs. Manimegalai Kannan, attended the meeting. Mrs. Naiini Chidambaram in her statement stated that she convened meeting with Mrs.Grahalakshmi and Mr.Prashanth in her cabin along with Mrs. Devi Palanichamy. She advised Mrs. Grahalakshmi that she lived with her husband for just 3 months and now having a male child and advised her to live with her husband for two more years and in case if she still doesn’t want to live with him after two years, they can seek judicial relief or with the help of family elders. She further stated that Mrs. Grahalakshmi did not state that there was any dowry demand. For this Mrs. Grahalakshmi and Mr.Prashanth kept silent. The fact was also confirmed by Mrs.Devi Palanichamy, the family friend of Mr.Dhanasekar. Mrs.Devi Palanichamy in her statement regretted that Mrs. Grahalakshmi spoiling her life. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram then informed them to discuss the issue with both families. Mr. Prashanth’s family and Mr. Dhanasekar and Mrs.Grahalakshmi discussed at the front office of Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram. In the mediation meeting, on query from Mr. Prashanth, Mrs.Grahalakshmi admitted that Mr. Prashanth and his family did not demand any dowry and further they have not paid any dowry to them, as confirmed by all the above witnesses in their statements.
In the meeting on 16/12/2006 arranged by Mrs. Viji, former cine actor, on the request of Mrs.Grahalakshmi to meet Mr.Prashanth to resolve the differences, Mrs.Grahalakshmi and her father admitted that there was no demand of dowry or any loan by Mr.Prashanth and his family as reported in the Press and it is false and they do not know the source of rumour. Mrs. Kala, Dance Master, Mr.Vinayagamoorthy and Mrs. Viji have confirmed the same in their statements. Mrs.Grahalakshmi stated that she met Mr.Vinayagamurthy who was about to kidnap her, but on contra she had allowed Mr.Vinayagamurthy to take photographs of her holding the new baby, which was produced by Mr.Vinayagamurthy. And also she attended the meeting with Mr.Vinayagamurthy and others as stated by Mrs.Kala, Mrs.Viji.
Further Mrs. Sivagamasundari in her statement had also stated that her husband informed Mr.Thiagarajan that Grahalakshmi is his pet daughter and he will not pay any dowry for her marriage, since he had already rejected two marriage proposals when dowry was demanded, from the above it is evident that no dowry was demanded and paid at the time of marriage. In the statement of Mr.Nagarajan, the brother of Mrs. Grahalakshmi that Mr.Thiagarajan and his family did not demand for dowry before marriage, however he added that they demanded Rs.8.00 crores after marriage.
Mr.Thiagarajan and his wife Mrs.Shanthi denied meeting Mr.Dhanasekar on 11-10-2005 and demanded Rs.8.00 crores or settlement of property in the joint name of Mrs.Grahalakshmi and Mr.Prashanth. Apart from the statement of the complainant and close relatives, all other independent witnesses have stated in the meetings held on 15-10-2006 and 16-12-2006, Mrs.Grahalakshmi and Mr.Dhanasekar admitted that there was no demand of dowry or loan.
The demand of car was stated by complainant only and her mother, her brothers or her brother’s wife have not stated the same.
From the statements of above independent witnesses, Mrs.Sivagama sundari and her son Mr.Nagarajan, no dowry was paid at the time of marriage. Also subsequent to the marriage no demand of Rs.8.00 crores or settlement of property in connection with the marriage was made by the accused and the allegation of Mrs.Grahalakshmi and her family members are baseless and not supported by any evidence.
HARASSMENT AND CRUELTY:
Mrs.Grahalakshmi stated that she was not allowed to accompany her husband for shootings, she was not allowed to speak to her family members, her in-laws had not spoken to her, her husband had not cared for her, she was locked inside ner house, she was not allowed to meet her brothers, forced to eat non-vegetarian, washing her clothes, etc.
On enquiry it is submitted by the Accused since he does not want to expose his personal life to the public, he did not take her to the shootings. Further whenever any outdoor shooting is arranged, the Producer has to bear the expenditure for lodging, boarding, travelling expenses etc., To avoid this, he did not take her, but when she insisted he took her to “PACHAIMALAI” for shooting. She had also attended the opening poojai shooting of film “JAMBAVAN” at Tirupathi. Her allegation of not providing her bed at Tirupathi is baseless, since Mr.Prashanth and their family were accommodated at Mr.Vijay Mallaiya’s Guest House at Tirumala and they were provided with three bed rooms.
Regarding she was not allowed to talk to her parents, Mrs.Grahalakshmi was provided with a new mobile connection by her husband apart from a mobile provided by her father. From the itemised bills of AIRCELL for mobile No.9841742820, used by Mrs. Grahalakshmi, she spoke to her family members regularly without any restriction of duration. Mrs. Grahalakshmi informed that the SIM issued to her by her father was 9840733963. On investigation , M/s. Bharati Airtel Ltd., gave the monthly bill for the above mobile, from 05.03.2003 to 24.04.2008 and it is found that Mrs.Grahalakshmi was using the Mobile during her stay at her in-law’s place from 05.09.2005 to 02.01.2006. The monthly bills for usage of outgoing calls from the above mobile are: 09/2005 Rs.2970.99; 10/2005 Rs.1981.08; 11/2005 Rs.1807.24; 12/2005 Rs.2504.06 and 01/2006 Rs.1850.46. Hence, her allegation that she was not allowed to use the SIM issued by her parents is baseless. Also Mrs. Shagamasundari, her mother in her statement stated that her brother. visited her regularly at week-ends at her in-laws place and also some persons will be deputed from their family to hand over some baggages to Mrs.Grahalakshmi regularly. Further she had stated that “I would panic If she does not talk to us for even for one day”, from the above it is evident that Mrs.Grahalakshmi allegation is baseless. Also her brothers in their statements stated that they used to visit her sister at her in-laws place. Mr. Prashanth’s watchman, Mr. Ambrose in his statement confirmed that the complainant’s brothers visit her regularly and she was not locked inside the house at any time. Whenever her relatives came to visit her, he would inform her over intercom and she would come down and receive them.
Even Mrs.Grahalakshmi in her statement stated that she was
forced to go to movies with her sister-in-law also she attended the election in Gymkhana Club and marriage of her cousin along with her parents. Her movement was not restricted and she was taken to various hospitals by her in-laws, temples and embassies for obtaining visas.
She alleged that on her birth day, her mother-in-law gave some gifts to Mr.Prashanth to hand it over to her, but he did not. Mr.Prashanth produced photographs along with Memory Card of the Digital Camera, taken on the eve of her birth day, in which she was presented with gifts by her sister-in-law and her husband.
Her brother Mr.Ponkumar alleged that Mrs. Grahalakshmi was made to live in the LIVING ROOM only, but Mrs. Grahalakshmi in her statement stated that she was instructed to stay in BED ROOM at FIRST FLOOR, hence there is contradicting statements among them.
Her allegation that the western toilet in Mr.Prashanth’s bedroom was unbearable and dirty and she was forced to wash the same. It is denied by the accused and also Mrs. Kavitha, the owner for House Keeping Agency, in her statement, had stated that there were 6 toilets in the house at No.21, Ganapathy Colony, Cenatoph Road, 2nd lane, Chennai and the maids for housekeeping to Mr. Prashanth’s above residence were sent by them and also tne toilets were cleaned by their maids only. Hence the allegation is not found to be true.
Her allegation of washing her clothes, it is stated by the accused that as she was complaining that the house maid did not wash her clothes properly, hence without inforrring her in-laws she sent her clothes to her parents house.
The allegation of forcing her to eat non-vegetarian is baseless since basically Mrs.Grahalakshmi and her family are a non-vegetarians. Mrs.Shanthi Thiagarajan is a Brahmin woman, and they have a separate cook for vegetarian at home. Mrs. Shanthi Thiagarajan, was happy that her daughter-in-law was also vegetarian and she never compelled her to eat non-vegetarian. Mr. Ambrose, the servant of Mr. Thiagarajan in his statement stated that soon after the marriage, Mrs. Grahalakshmi had only vegetarian food and after some months only she ate non-vegetarian food.
Mrs. Grahalakshmi in her complaint stated that she was subjected to cruelty for not bringing enough jewellery and personal belongings at one shot.
But Mrs. Grahalakshmi in her 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement at one time she had stated that she packed 3 trolley bags full of clothes and listed out jewellery she brought to her in-laws place on 5-09-2005, and in the same statement, she had stated that she did not have sufficient time to pack her personal belongings and also there was no lock in the cup-boards to keep her jewellery safely, hence she did not bring it. In Mrs. Sivagamasundari statement, she stated that her daughter did not take all her belongings, hence she kept packing her things and started to send over weekends or whenever she communicated with her.
Also Mrs. Grahalakshmi in he, complaint stated that when she was sent to her parent’s house, she left costly electronic goods, jewellery and furnished the list. In the above list, the jewellery she had allegedly brought in 3 trolley bags were not found.
As such, there is contradicting statements by the complainant as well as her mother, whether she taken all the jewellery and her personal belongings to her in-laws place is not known. The accused
have no knowledge of this, since they had not demanded any jewellery.
4. EXPENDITURE OF VISIT TO MALAYSIA & PURCHASE OF COSTLY ELECTRONIC HOUSEHOLD ITEMS:
The Complainant alleged that her father incurred expenditure for travel of herself and her husband to Malaysia and Singapore. Though the invitation to visit Malaysia, was a gift by an esteemed Minister in Malaysia, her father was compelled to pay for the tickets. Also on demand from Mr.Prashanth for LCD TV, her father agreed to pay for LCD TV and other electronic goods purchased at Malaysia.
Mr.Thiagarajan denied this and informed that he paid for the travel and produced invoice No.INT00873 dated 03/10/2005 for Rs.66,000/- from M/s. Krystal Travels, No.72, Linghi Chetty Street, 1st Floor, Chennai 600 001 for air ticket to Mr. T.Prashanth and Mrs.Grahalakshmi in Sector MAA/KUL/SIN/KUL/MAA and also the cash receipt.
Mr. Prashanth stated that he had not demanded any TV or other costly electronic items, since he had travelled to various foreign countries and purchased sophisticated electronic goods. He further informed that she did not buy LCD TV at Malaysia and she was purchasing lingerie and other cosmetic, cems for her at his cost.
Mrs.Grahalakshmi produced a xerox copy of tax invoice of M/s.Harvey Norman, Malaysia for booking Philips LCD TV Model 429986 at the cost of RM 24,500 and paid an advance of RM 2,000. As per invoice it was purchased by one Mr.Bala, residing at No.5 & 7, JLN Melayu, KL and with delivery instruction to the same address. The invoice does not contain eitner Mr.Prashanth’s name or Mrs.Grahalakshmi. She has failed to produce the vouchers and Customs Duty documents for the LCD TV and any other documentary evidence for bringing the same to India and she had not submitted any other documents in support of her claim for purchasing LCD TV and other expensive electronics at Malaysia as per the demand of Mr.Prashanth.
Also Mr.Ponkumar stated that his father “AGREED TO BEAR THE EXPENSES” approximately US $ 50000/- as such whether the amount was paid or not is not known. Also the invoices submitted by Mrs.Grahalakshmi without her name or Mr.Prashanth amounts to approximately RM 35,000/- when converted to the Indian Rupees approximately at Rs.12/- per RM would be around Rs.4,20,000/-whereas Mr.Ponkumar and his wife Mrs.Abirami Ponkumar falsely stated that Mr.Dhanasekar incurred an expenditure of US $ 50,000/-on conversion in Indian Rupees amounts to more than Rs.22,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs) The statements Mr. Ponkumar and Mrs.Abirami Ponkumar are nothing but a lie to corroborate Mrs.Grahalakshmi’s allegations.
5. DRIVEN OUT OF HER MATRIMONIAL HOUSE AND SALE OF HER MATRIMONIAL HOUSE WITHOUT HER KNOWLEDGE:
Mrs. Grahalakshmi stated that under the pretext of shooting for 6 months, she was sent out of her matrimonial house on 2-1-2006 during pregnancy and after 2.1.2006 till Family court 1st hearing in Nov’2006, her husband or her in-laws spoke to her or visited the child.
Mrs. Grahalakshmi’s Doctor, Ms. Rekha Paragal, on examining her on 27-12-2005, informed her that she is having dermoid cyst measuring 9 cms in the Right ovary and if she exerts it might cause torsion and it may affect the foetus and also harm the mother. The Doctor advised her to take rest and to avoid physical relationship with her husband. Hence, she wanted to go to her mother’s place to take rest and as per her wish, she was taken to her house on 2.1.2006 by her brother at an auspicious time informed by her mother-in-law.
Mr.Prashanth was out of station for 10 days for shooting and he was in constant touch with his wife. But when he came to know about the gossip columns in Tamil Magazines, he asked his wife regarding the gossip and advised her to issue a denial statement. When she or her parents did not issue any such denial statement, the misunderstanding between her husbad and in-laws developed.
Mr.Prashanth sold his house at Cenatoph Road, as per Vaasthu consultants and shifted his residence to a rented house. The house was his self acquired property and it s not necessary for him to get the consent of his wife.
Mrs. Grahalakshmi informed that she sent SMS to her husband about the birth of the new child, and no reply or response from him. Mr.Prashanth denies any such SMS and also since he is a famous actor in Tamil Movies, his residence is known in the cine circle, they had not taken any steps to inform him. When he saw a press notification in Deccan Chronicle about the arrival of his son, he was agitated.
6. FALSE COMPLAINT OF BIGAMY AND FABRICATION OF DOCUMENTS:
Mr.Prashanth filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in OP No.2721/2006 on 23-10-2006, Mrs. Grahalakshmi entered appearance and filed Maintenance petition in LA. ON 2.1.2007.
Mr.Prashanth withdrawn the above OP and filed a petition before the Family Court at Chennai to declare the marriage as NULL AND VOID on the grounds of bigamy. He alleged that Ms.Grahalakhsmi married one Mr. Narayanan Venu Prasad and registered their marriage on 30-12-1998 before the Joint Sub-Registrar at Chennai 1. Mr. Prashanth had also given a police complaint against Mrs. Grahalakshmi and others for cheating and other offences u/s 419, 418, 494, 456, 385, 327 of IPC r/w 120 B of IPC & 506 Part II of IPC. After investigation, the final report was submitted and pending on the file of Hon’ble XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet ir; CC No. 5S67/2007. Mr.Narayanan Venu Prasad in his statement has stated that he married Ms.Grahalakshmi on 30-11-1998, and he registered their marriage before the Joint Sub-Registrar on 30-12-1998, and three of his friends signed in the Marriage Register as Witness. He stated that she appeared in person before the Registrar and produced her passport and other documents proving her identity. Her appearance in person has aiso corroborated by the staffs in the Registrar’s office. Mr.Narayanan Venu Prasad stated that they had lived together as husband and wife. He further stated that they used to meet very often and shared very intimate relationsnip as husband and wife. He further stated that they had no children. Mr.Narayanan Venu Prasad further said that he took good care of her as she was his lawfully wedded wife and got her a Credit Card from Standard Chartered Bank No. 5543 7885 9000 1411 as “V.GRAHALAKSHMI” and submitted the credit card statement. Mr.Narayanan Venu Prasad also alleged that he gave her a mobile No.98400 28975, since her dr . of birth was 28/9/75 to keep in touch with her. Mr.Narayanan Venu Prasad showed certain letters written by Mrs. Grahalakshmi in which she had announced that she has already chosen her life partner as she has the rights to live her life.
Mr.Narayanan Venu Prasad left for Cochin for a job. In 2000 Mr.Narayanan Venu Prasad approached their parents for marriage but they refused. Mr.Narayanan Venu Prasad also filed a divorce petition for divorce in OP No.1869 of 2007 and the same is pending.
Mrs. Grahalakshmi filed a petition before the High Court of Madras in O.P.No.26368/2007 for quashing the proceedings initiated by Mr.Prashanth for fraud cheating and bigamy and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court stating that prima facie case has been made out against the accused. Aggrieved by this order Mrs.Grahalakshmi and others approached the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.380/2008 upon hearing the parties the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP’s.
The allegation of Mrs. Grahalakshmi that Mr. Prashanth instigated someone to file a divorce petition alleging bigamy on forged documents Is ..baseless since the witnesses who had signed in the Marriage Register as witness have stated in their statement that they witnessed the registration of marriage between Mr.Narayanan Venu Prasad and Ms. Grahalakshmi.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE INVESTIGATION AND ENQUIRY REVEALS THAT THERE IS NO DEMAND OF DOWRY OR CRUELTY OR HARASSMENT HENCE. THE CASE IS REFERRED AS “MISTAKE OF FACT”.
THE REPORT MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED.
Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Dowry Cell, Chennai.