Dismissed

D.Ramakrishnan v. P.Loganayaki@Sridevi Aishwarya

Madras HC8 Feb 2019CRL MP/1653/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought modification of a prior order requiring them to execute a bond under Cr.P.C. instead of subjecting the respondent to a monthly bank deposit condition by Rubeshraj. The Court upheld its earlier order, finding no infirmity in the conditions imposed regarding the deposit as ad-interim maintenance. The petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

D.Ramakrishnan Vs P.Loganayaki@Sridevi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Eighth day of February Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1653 of 2019

¶7

IN CRL.OP.NO.28382 OF 2018

¶8

1 D.RAMAKRISHNAN [ PETITIONERS ] 2 M.R.RAJESHWARI 3 T.S.PANCHATSHARAM 4 P.PARVATHY 5 GAYATHRI 6 A.N.KABALEESHWARAN

¶9

¶10

1 P.LOGANAYAKI @ SRIDEVI AISHWARYA, [ RESPONDENTS ] 2 M.R.RUBESHRAJ 3 D.R.ANUVARSHINI

¶11

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein the High Court will be pleased to modify the condition to the effect that the petitioners will execute a bond under sec.88 of Cr P.C for their appearance before the trail court and undertake to appear as and when required by the trial court instead of condition that the petitioners shall ensure Rubeshraj deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) before 5^th of every English Calendar month to the credit of D.V.A.No.5 of 2018 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate III, Erode as observed in Para No.3 of the order in Crl.MP.NO.16509 of 2018 in Crl.OP.NO.28382 of 2018 dated 5.12.2018.

¶12

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.M.SARFUDEEN ALI AHAMED, Advocate for the petitioner the court made the following order:-

¶13

This Court has already passed an order in Crl.O.P.No.28382 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.No.16509 & 16507 of 2018 dated 05.12.2018, dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court on condition that they shall ensure that M.R.Rubeshraj shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) before 5^th of every English Calendar month starting to the credit of D.V.A.No.5 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode as ad-interim maintenance, without prejudice to both the parties. On such deposit being made, the respondent/wife is entitled to withdraw the said sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited on or before 12.12.2018. Seeking modification of the said condition, the present petition is filed by the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

2.This Court finds no infirmity in the above said order passed by this Court. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

¶15

-sd/-

¶16

08/02/2019

¶17

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶18

TRUE COPY

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)
High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
NO.III, ERODE.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
ERODE. [FOR INFORMATION]
+1C.C. to M/S.M.SARFUDEEN ALI AHAMED Advocate on payment of
necessary charges in SR.NO. 3054
Order
in
CRL MP.1653/2019
IN CRL.OP.NO.28382 OF 2018
Date :08/02/2019
From 7.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified
copies of the BAIL/Anti.BAIL Orders in this format
MLT-18/02/2019

¶20

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

D.Ramakrishnan v. P.Loganayaki@Sridevi Aishwarya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

D.Ramakrishnan v. P.Loganayaki@Sridevi Aishwarya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Palanivelu Vs State Rep.by

Hindu Makkal Party Tamilnadu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Vellaiyammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath, Vs The District Collector

M.Raja, Vs The Secretary to Government

Thooyamani Vs The Director General of