Partly allowed

Packiaraj v. Suguna

Madras HC22 Apr 2019CRL OP/1613/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Original Petition to quash domestic violence proceedings pending against four petitioners (petitioners Numbers 2 to 4). The Court held that as they were in-laws living separately from the matrimonial home, no domestic violence allegations against them could be sustained. Proceedings were quashed insofar as they concerned the petitioners, subject to a condition r

What did the court decide?

Quashing of domestic violence proceedings against petitioners 2-4 on condition that the husband deposits Rs.5,000 monthly for ad-interim maintenance; direction to complete trial within three months.

Packiaraj Vs Suguna — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 22.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.1613 of 2019 and

¶6

CRL.M.P.No.1014 of 2019

¶7

1.Packiaraj
2.Balakrishnan
3.Chithira
4.Rajeevi ... Petitioners
Vs.
Suguna ... Respondent
[This Crl.O.P.No.1613 of 2019 is
dismissed in sofar as the 1 st
petitioner is concerned, as per the
order dated 23.01.2019 in
Crl.O.P.No.1613 and Crl.M.P.Nos.1014
& 1015 of 2019.]

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,. to call for the records in D.V.No.4 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kallakurichi quash the same.

¶9

For Petitioners: Mr.S.N.Subramani

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.B.Mohan ORDER

¶11

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.4 of 2018, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kallakurichi.

¶12

2.The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between 1^st petitioner/husband and the respondent viz.,Suguna was solemnized on 24.01.2016. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes the respondent and her husband/1^st petitioner were living separately from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ matrimonial home. Under this circumstance, the respondent

¶13

herein filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C.No.4 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kallakurichi and implicated the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 as parties to the petition and sought action as against them under Domestic Violence Act. The said D.V.C.No.4 of 2018 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein pray to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.4 of 2018.

¶14

3.Heard Mr.S.N.Subramani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.B.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶15

4.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/1^st petitioner, who is already a party in that case. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 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 petitioner Nos.2 to 4, based on the allegations, cannot be maintained, in view of the fact that the allegations of harassment meted out by the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 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 petitioner Nos.2 to 4. In the absence of the same, the proceedings as against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 cannot be maintained and consequently, the petitioners need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal trial.

¶16

5.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.4 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kallakurichi, insofar as these petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, on condition that, they shall ensure that the 1^st petitioner/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 D.V.C.No.4 of 2018, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kallakurichi, 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.

¶17

6.Insofar as 1^st petitioner/husband of the respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in D.V.C.No.4 of 2018 is pending from the year 2018 onwards, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The 1^st petitioner/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.

¶18

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

¶19

7.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
The Judicial Magistrate Court No.I,
Kallakurichi.
+1 CC to Mr. S.N.SUBRAMANI Advocate SR.NO.39020
CRL.O.P.No.1613 of 2019
CO(VBA)
VC (08/06/2019)

¶21

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

Packiaraj v. Suguna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Packiaraj v. Suguna

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

K.v.Narayanan Vs S.Harini

K.Megaram Vs Suresh

Rakesh Vs Sowndarya

P.Chellamuthu Vs the State Rep by Its

Eswaramoorthi Vs the State Rep by

E.Pandian, M/56 Vs All Women Police Station