Dismissed

D.Rajkumar v. Mrs.Monisha @Arthi

Madras HC1 Oct 2018CRL OP/16091/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed a criminal petition filed by a husband to quash a Domestic Violence application filed by his wife and the direction for record of evidence, holding that rival contentions require trial. The court observed that no grounds were made out for quashing and the matter must be decided during the trial. The order was passed with no appearance from either side.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Domestic Violence application and direction for record of evidence dismissed.

D.Rajkumar Vs Mrs.Monisha @Arthi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.16091 of 2011

¶7

D.Rajkumar ...Petitioner/1st respondent
Vs.
1. Mrs.Monisha @ Arthi ...Respondent/Complainant
2. M.Dhanaraj
3. Mrs.Shantha Dhanaraj
4. Mrs.Rajeswari
5. M.Pushparaj
6. Rani Pushparaj
7. Saravana Kumar ...Respondents 2 to 7/
Respondents 2 to 7
Prayer:
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the

¶8

Code of Criminal Procedure to issue a direction calling for the

¶9

records in D.V.A.No.15 of 2010, on the file of the learned

¶10

Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore and quash the same.

¶11

For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondents : No Appearance *****

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner is the 1st respondent on the private complaint filed by the respondent/wife against the petitioner and his family members which is pending trial in D.V.A.No.15 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI,

¶16

Coimbatore.

¶17

The 1st respondent/wife seeking for protection order before the Trial Court against the respondent to return the jewels given at the time of marriage of the petitioner and not to alienate any movable and immovable property of the petitioner and to pay a sum of Rs.20 Lakh as compensation and damage for the injuries including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the act the petitioner has to pay a monthly payment of Rs.12,000/- towards maintenance. The 1st respondent marriage ceremony was solemnized on 15.02.2009 arranged by the elder members and the marriage proposal was through internet. Subsequent to the marriage he lived with the 1st respondent at Selaiyur, East Tambaram, Chennai. After two months, the first respondent picked up

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

unwanted quarrel with the petitioner and she left the petitioner and went to her parental house. After several stages of counselling and compromises by the elder members of both the families, the 1st respondent has failed to attend conciliation arrangements and thereafter, the petitioner had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Sub Judge, Thiruppathur in H.M.O.P.No.29 of 2010 and the same was decreed in favour of the petitioner. The 1st respondent had filed the present application under D.V.Act and threatened the petitioner to withdraw the restitution petition. The 1st respondent had opened a bank account at Coimbatore to create Jurisdiction for Cause of Action. Though, the first respondent is working at Infosis Technology, Mahindra Industrial Park, Chengalpattu. Hence, on these grounds the petitioner had filed for quashing petition.

¶21

On going through the averments and on a perusal of

¶22

the records, this Court feels that there are no grounds made out for quashing the petition. It is seen that the petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the first respondent seeking for protection against him and there are rival http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

contentions between the petitioner and the first respondent which could not be decided in the quash petition. These facts

¶25

has to be decided only during trial.

¶26

4. In view of the above submissions and facts, the quash

¶27

petition stands dismissed.
01.10.2018
msm
Speaking Order: Yes/No
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.VI,
Coimbatore.

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶29

¶30

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

¶31

msm

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.16091 of 2011
01.10.2018

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

D.Rajkumar v. Mrs.Monisha @Arthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Rajkumar v. Mrs.Monisha @Arthi

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.Kisan Vs B.Viswas Jadhav

A.Abdul Bazith Vs M/S.Nmv Associates

Ravi Vs State Rep by

Premalatha Vs G.v.Chenchaiah

M.S.K.Ramesh Raj Vs State Rep by

Dr.S.Kalaikumar Vs G.Venkatesh