Dismissed

Mr. K. Ravi, v. Mrs. S. Nandhini

Madras HC15 Jun 2016CRL OP/10033/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash domestic violence proceedings alleging retaliatory litigation by the Respondent. The Court held that the impugned proceedings could not be quashed and dismissed the petition, stating that disputed facts lie within the domain of the lower court.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed; consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

Mr. K. Ravi, Vs Mrs. S. Nandhini — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 15.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶5

Crl.OP.No.10033 of 2016

¶6

and CrlMP Nos.5331 and 5332 of 2016

¶7

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in connection with D.V.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, pending investigation and to quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner :Mr.G. Murali

¶9

For Respondent :Mr.R.Rajesh

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in connection with D.V.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶12

2.It is seen that the petitioner got married to the respondent on 31.08.1995 and they have one child through the wedlock. While so, it is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner did not take care of her and her child and therefore, the respondent initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act before the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in D.V.No.4 of 2016, challenging which, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the said proceedings.

¶13

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed HMOP No.521 of 2015 for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent, as only a counter blast, the respondent has initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

¶14

4.Section 36 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, states that the act is not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force. Hence, the proceedings initiated by the respondent cannot be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quashed.

¶15

5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is not appearing before the Lok Adalat in the proceedings of restitution of conjugal rights, which has been initiated before the Sub Court, Poonamallee, Chennai.

¶16

6.Mr.R.Rajesh, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not paid any amount for the past five years either to the respondent or to the child.

¶17

This Court cannot go into disputed questions of facts in an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC. It is open to the petitioner to raise all the points before the Court below. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mps
To
The XIV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore,
Chennai.
+ 1 cc to Mr.E. Ezhil Karolin, Advocate SR.33374
+ 1 cc to Mr. G. Murali, Advocate SR.33006

¶19

Crl.OP.No.10033 of 2016 and CrlMP Nos.5331&5332 of 2016 PA(CO) EU 24.06.16

¶20

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

Mr. K. Ravi, v. Mrs. S. Nandhini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. K. Ravi, v. Mrs. S. Nandhini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjith Vs State by

Somasundaram, Vs State Rep. by Inspector of

S.Imran Sheriff Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Naresh Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

S. Vijayakumar, Vs the Inspector of Police

Sathish Babu Vs the Inspector of Police