Dismissed

Lakshmana Sundar v. D.Aiswarya Npm

Madras HC15 Nov 2018CRL OP/26436/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

There was an application to quash maintenance proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of awarding the dismissal of the petition, noting the claims and allegations made by the parties and directing the court to complete the proceedings within three months. The petitioner challenges the maintenance claimed by the respondents. The respondents claimed maintenance of Rs.40,000/-, which is under t

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; proceedings against respondents to be completed by lower court within three months.

Lakshmana Sundar Vs D.Aiswarya Npm — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 15.11.2018

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No. 26436 of 2018

¶6

and

¶7

Crl.M.P.No. 15199 & 15201 of 2018

¶8

Lakshmana Sundar ...Petitioner/ Respondents

¶9

Vs. 1.D.Aiswarya D/o.A.M.V.Durairajan. 2.Minor Sajanth

¶10

Rep. By his defacto natural guardian

¶11

and mother D.Aiswarya ...Respondents/Petitioner

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to call for the records related to M.C.No.6 of 2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedharanyam and to quash the same in view of the proceedings on the petitioner.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. R.BalaGuruswamy

¶14

For Respondent : No appearance.

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition has been filed challenging the proceedings in M.C.No.6 of 2018 wherein the respondents have claimed maintenance amount of Rs.40,000/- from the petitioner. The 1^st respondent is the wife and the 2^nd respondent is the minor son.

¶17

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the marriage was solemnized in the year 2012 and the child was born in the year 2013. From the year 2016 onwards, the 1^st respondent is living with her parents along with the minor son. The entire allegation made against the petitioner is that there is demand of dowry by the petitioner and his parents. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the maintenance claimed by the respondents is excessive and the 1^st respondent has also filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act

¶18

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

¶19

and the same is pending before the very same Court in D.V.O.P.No.2 of 2018.

¶20

The grounds raised by the petitioners are all factual in nature and this Court cannot go in to the same at this stage. It is for the petitioner to establish before the Court below that the maintenance amount claimed is excessive.

¶21

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined interfere with the proceedings in M.C.No.6 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam, Nagapattinam District, at his stage. The Court below is to directed to complete the proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rm/kmm
To
1.The District Junsif-cum Judicial Magistrate,
Vedaranyam,
Nagapattinam District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶24

+1cc to Mr.R.Balaguruswami, Advocate SR.No.78421

¶25

Crl.O.P.No. 26436 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.Nos.15199 & 15201 of 2018

¶26

SSV(CO) GMY(06/12/2018)

¶27

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

Lakshmana Sundar v. D.Aiswarya Npm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmana Sundar v. D.Aiswarya Npm

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

Tamilarasi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Sakthivel, Aged 35 Years, Vs Tmt.Jeevitha

Parimala, F/A.31 Years Vs State Rep by

Radhika Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Vighas, Aged 31 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

Dr.P.Gokulakrishnan, Vs State Rep. by