Disposed

Vinoth Kumar v. Yogeswari

Madras HC21 Mar 2017CRL MP(MD)/2418/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dispensed with the personal appearance of petitioners in CRL OP No.3188 of 2017. The court noted the respondent filed a police complaint despite the petitioners seeking Hext Order of Protection, yet the respondent failed to appear in DVOP proceedings, warranting dispensation.

What did the court decide?

Dispensation of personal appearance of petitioners in D.V.O.P. Crl.OP No.3188 of 2017.

Vinoth Kumar Vs Yogeswari — Dowry and Cruelty | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty First day of March Two Thousand Seventeen

¶2

PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH

¶3

CRL MP(MD) No.2418 of 2017 IN CRL OP(MD) No.3188 of 2017 1 VINOTH KUMAR

¶4

2 JAYAGOPI 3 RENUKA DEVI

¶5

4 SATHISHKUMAR

¶6

5 AKILA DEVI

¶7

6 SARAVANAN ... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS

¶8

¶9

YOGESWARI ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to DISPENSE WITH THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE of the petitioners in D.V.C.No.126 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Thiruchirappalli District pending disposal of the Crl.OP and thus render justice.

¶11

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.T.ARUL, Advocate for the petitioner, the court made the following order:-

¶12

Under normal circumstances, this Court would direct the petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the respondent. But, in this case, this Court finds that the respondent has lodged a police complaint against the petitioner, despite which, the petitioner had filed H.M.O.P.No.60/16 for restitution of conjugal right before the Family Court, Villupuram and an exparte order has been obtained in favour of the first petitioner on 19.12.2016. The respondent police, who has filed the present DVOP proceedings on 13.10.2016 was aware of H.M.O.P.No.60/16, but has not chosen to appear. Hence, dispensed with.

sd/-

21/03/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶17

¶18

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ADDITIONAL MAHILA COURT, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶19

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY.

¶20

ORDER IN

¶21

CRL MP(MD) No.2418 of 2017 IN

¶22

CRL OP(MD) No.3188 of 2017 Date :21/03/2017 CSL/BS/SAR-III/27.03.2017 : 2P/3C

¶23

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

Vinoth Kumar v. Yogeswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinoth Kumar v. Yogeswari

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

Manavalan Angelo Jude Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Jeyapandi, Vs State Rep.through

Thilaga, Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Vasuki, Vs M.Krishnan

Nallasamy Vs Jegadheesan

C.Thangam, W/O.Chinnasamy Vs the Principal Secretary to