The Madras High Court has confirmed the conviction of R. Sethupathi Ramalingam, former Vice-V chancellor of Periyar University in Salem, in a case booked for having subjected his daughter-in-law to cruelty after her marriage to his son in 2002.
Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, however, reduced the sentence imposed on the convict from three years, imposed by a Fast Track Court in Salem in November 2010, to just one year of rigorous imprisonment since he was now 80 years old.
The judge passed the common order on a criminal revision petition preferred by the convict in 2010 challenging his conviction and a criminal appeal preferred by the State in 2011 challenging his acquittal from charges of dowry demand and harassment.
Justice Kumar dismissed the State appeal and partly allowed the revision petition by reducing the sentence alone. He held that the Fast Track Court had rightly convicted the former Vice-Chancellor under Section 498A (subjecting women to cruelty) of Indian Penal Code.
The judge said that the convict had got the complainant, from an agricultural family, get married to his son on the promise of sending her along with him to the U.S. within 10 days. The marriage was performed on receipt of ₹2 lakh in cash towards dowry.
However, instead of applying a dependent visa for her, the convict made her study a postgraduate course in information technology and made her apply in vain for a student visa. “This was nothing but a ploy adopted to deny her entry to the US by all means,” the judge said.
He further pointed out that no marriage invitation was printed and the entire ceremony was conducted with just close family members since it happened to be a second marriage for his son and also because by citing that the groom was a Green Card holder expecting US citizenship.
After the marriage, the couple lived together only for five days before the groom left to the US and remained absconding till date though he was also one of the accused in the case and a non bailable arrest warrant issued against him was still pending execution.
“The victim has been ravished and thereafter she had been left in a lurch,” the judge said and pointed out that the convict’s son had also obtained an ex-parte divorce decree in the United States though criminal proceedings against him and his family were pending here.
Though the issue was also referred to mediation, during the pendency of the present revision petition in the High Court for the last 10 years, but did not fructify, the convict had now conveniently denied any existing contacts with his son, Justice Kumar pointed out.
“The contention of the revision petitioner/A1 that he is not aware of his whereabouts and has no influence on his marital life is unacceptable,” the judge held.