Dismissed

Muthumani v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Dec 2015CRL OP/26542/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras directed police and the Protection Officer to implement a Domestic Violence Act order within six weeks, mandating residential arrangements and recovery of stolen sreedhana properties after the petitioner complained of non-compliance by the husband.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to implement the domestic violence court orders granting residential arrangement and return of sreedhana within six weeks.

Muthumani Vs the Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.12.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.26542 of 2013

¶6

Muthumani ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs
1.Inspector of Police,
Orathanadu Police Station,
Tanjur District.
2.The Protection Officer,
Under Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act,
Tanjur District.
3.V.Kaviyarasan
4.V.Indira
5.Kalayarasan ... Respondents
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to direct respondents 1 and 2 to implement the order of
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, dated 20.9.2010 in
C.M.P.No.4790 of 2009 and its order of execution in C.M.P.No.7371
of 2011 dated 1.2.2012.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thilageswaran For respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R.1 and R.2 Mr.J.Franklin, for R3 ORDER

¶9

The present criminal original petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to implement the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, dated 20.9.2010 made in C.M.P.No.4790 of 2009 and the order of execution in C.M.P.No.7371 of 2011 dated 1.2.2012.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

It is the case of the petitioner that the marriage between her and the third respondent had taken place on 28.8.2006. At the time of marriage, 15 sovereigns of gold jewels and cash of Rs.50,000/- and household articles were given as sreedhana. The parents of her husband told her that unless she brought Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, they would not allow her to live along with her husband. Since the said amount was not given, the petitioner was driven out of the matrimonial home along with her child. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.4790 of 2010 under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam against her husband, the third respondent herein and sought for protection, residential order and maintenance as provided under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the said Act. The said petition was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, by order dated 20.9.2010 with a direction to the third respondent not to enter into the school of the petitioner's daughter and not to commit any atrocity against her. Further, the learned Magistrate has ordered residential order and an order of maintenance was also passed directing the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,000/- for the petitioner and her child. Further, the third respondent was also directed to return back her sreedhana properties viz., gold jewels and cash of Rs.50,000/-. Against the said order, the respondents 3 to 5 had filed an appeal in C.A.No.106 of 2010 before the learned District and Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, in which the learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 4.9.2010, while confirming the order of the learned Magistrate, Palladam, reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.2,500/-. Even after that, the third respondent has not come forward to comply with the said order. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.7371 of 2011 for execution of the said order. By the time when the said execution petition reached, the third respondent with an intention to escape from the clutches of law, moved to Thanjavur District and settled there. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, by an order dated 1.2.2012, directed the second respondent viz., the Protection Officer of Thanjavur to make residential arrangement at the place of the third respondent, recover the sreedhana properties and jewels from the third respondent. Further, he was also directed to find out the income details of the third respondent and to make arrangement for revenue recovery as ordered in C.M.P.No.4790 of 2009. The learned Magistrate has also directed to serve a copy of the said order to the jurisdictional police station for necessary implication of the order. However, instead of complying with the said order, the first respondent police mechanically got statement from the third respondent and has not taken any steps to implement the order of the learned Magistrate. Due to the non-compliance of the order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner could not get any of the remedies as ordered in the said petition and the petitioner and her child are starving and could not meet out their daily bread. Hence, she has come forward with the present petition seeking a

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

direction to respondents 1 and 2 to implement the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, dated 20.9.2010 made in C.M.P.No.4790 of 2009 and the order of execution in C.M.P.No.7371 of 2011 dated 1.2.2012.

¶14

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed counter, wherein, it has been stated that as per the direction of the learned Magistrate, the then Inspector of Police had enquired the petitioner and the third respondent on 26.9.2012, 28.9.2012, 5.10.2012, 8.10.2012 and 9.10.2012 and obtained written statements. Further, on enquiry, the then Inspector of Police came to know that the third respondent and the petitioner are residing at Tiruppur. When the present Inspector of Police called upon both the petitioner and the third respondent for enquiry, they have refused to appear for enquiry by stating that they have already given statements to the then Inspector of Police. Further, they have stated that they have filed petitions before this Court and the same are pending.

¶15

I have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶16

Considering the submissions made on either side, this Court is constrained to pass the following order:-

¶17

The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to implement the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, dated 20.9.2010 made in C.M.P.No.4790 of 2009 and the order of execution in C.M.P.No.7371 of 2011 dated 1.2.2012, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

The criminal original petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶19

Sd/Asst.Registrar (J) /true copy/

¶20

Sub Asst. Registrar sbi To

¶21

1.The Inspector of Police, Orathanadu Police Station, Thanjur District

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

2.The Protection Officer, Under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Tanjur District

¶24

3.The Judicial Magistrate, Palladam

¶25

do thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate Tiruppur

¶26

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶27

1 cc to Mr.K. Thilageswaran, Advocate, Sr. 68321
Crl.O.P.No.26542 of 2013
VGI (CO)
kk 18/1

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Muthumani v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthumani v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.C.Ashkar Vs State by

Muthukrishnan Vs the Inspector of Police

V.K.Sasi Priya Vs J.Jeyakanthan

Dr.S.P.Ilango Vs the Inspector of Police

Arockiasamy Vs Michal Rajathi @ Lavanya

R.Arivalagan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police