Allowed

Mr.Ragunathan, v. S.Yamini

Madras HC11 Apr 2019CRL OP/1237/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed DVC proceedings against petitioners who are the respondent's in-laws. The Court held that since the petitioners live separately and allegations against them are false, they cannot be liable. The husband was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000 monthly maintenance. Trial directed to complete within six months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings against petitioners; directed husband to deposit Rs. 5,000 monthly maintenance; ordered trial completion within six months.

Mr.Ragunathan, Vs S.Yamini — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.1237 of 2018 and CRL.M.P.Nos. 428 & 429 of 2018 1. Ragunathan 2. Padma ... Petitioners Vs. S.Yamini ...Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to DVC. No. 21 of 2017 pending on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same. For Petitioners: No Appearance For Respondent : M/s.Auxiliapetu O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.A.No.6 of 2018, filed by the respondent herein, pending on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.

¶6

The petitioners are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between A1/ R.Balaji and the respondent Viz., S.Yamini was solemnized on 20.06.2013. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes the respondent and her husband were living separately from the matrimonial home. Under this circumstance, the respondent herein filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act in DVC. No.21 of 2017 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet and implicated the petitioners as parties to the petition and sought action as against them under Domestic Violence Act. The said DVC.21 of 2017 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners herein who are the in-laws of the respondent pray to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.21 of 2017.

¶7

No representation for the petitioners. Heard

¶8

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

¶9

M/s.Auxiliapetu learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶10

It is seen that the relief sought for by the respondent in the domestic violence case with regard to residential rights, compensation, etc., can be made and claimed as against her husband, who is already a party in that case. The petitioners herein are only in-laws of the respondent and they are living separately. As such, the protection order sought for by the respondent herein in the domestic violence case against these petitioners/ in-laws, based on the allegations, cannot be maintained, in view of the fact that the allegations of harassment meted out by the petitioners against the respondent itself seems to be false. While that being so, there cannot be any act of any domestic violence as defined under Domestic Violence Act against these petitioners. In the absence of the same, the proceedings as against these petitioners cannot be maintained and consequently, the petitioners need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal trial.

¶11

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in DVC. No. 21 of 2017, on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, insofar as these petitioners are concerned, on condition that, they shall ensure that the A1/husband of the respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) before 5^th of every English Calendar month to the credit of DVC. No. 21 of 2017, on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet as ad-interim maintenance, without prejudice to both the parties, failing which this order shall sand automatically cancelled. On such deposit being made, the respondent is entitled to withdraw the same.

¶12

Insofar as A1/husband of the respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in DVC. No. 21 of 2017 is pending from the year 2017 onwards, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. A1/husband of the respondent is directed to appear before the trial Court on the next hearing date, failing which, the respondent is at liberty to approach this Court.

¶13

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶14

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶15

//True Copy//

¶16

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶21

+1cc to Mr.Auxila Peter, Advocate, S.R.No. 37275

¶22

CRL.O.P.No.1237 of 2018
and
CRL.M.P.Nos. 428 & 429 of 2018
SJ(CO)
GN(28/05/2019)

¶23

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

Mr.Ragunathan, v. S.Yamini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Ragunathan, v. S.Yamini

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

Mrs.Rukmani (Aged 60 Years) Vs S.Vandhana

Dr.R.Vilwanathan Vs Shobana W/O Dr.Viswanathan

Mahesh Vs State Rep by

G.Gopirajan Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohan Vs State Rep by

A.Fakrudhin Ali Ahamed Vs State Rep by