Allowed

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

Madras HC10 Apr 2019CRL OP/16483/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras quashed domestic violence proceedings against petitioners (respondent's in-laws) regarding false harassment allegations. The Court granted interim maintenance against the husband and ordered completion of trial within three months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed DV proceedings against petitioners; directed husband to deposit Rs. 5,000 monthly as interim maintenance; ordered trial completion within 3 months.

Mrs.Rukmani (Aged 60 Years) Vs S.Vandhana — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 10.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.16483 of 2016

¶6

and Crl.M.P.Nos.7997, 7998 & 9073 of 2016

¶7

Rukmani 2. S.Kasilingam 3. Gowtham Balaji ... Petitioners Vs. S.Vandhana ...Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records of D.V.A.No.4 of 2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore and quash the same in respect of the petitioners alone.

¶8

For Petitioners: Mr.R.Sunil Kumar

¶9

For Respondent : No Appearance

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This petition has been filed to call for the records of D.V.A.No.4 of 2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore and quash the same in respect of the petitioners alone.

¶12

2.The petitioners are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between A1/R.K.Manojj and the respondent Viz.,S.Vandhana was solemnized on 05.09.2010. 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 D.V.A.No.4 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate III, Coimbatore, and implicated the petitioners and her husband as parties to the petition and sought action as against them under Domestic Violence Act. The said D.V.A.No.4 of 2016 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.A.No.4 of 2016.

¶13

Heard Mr.R.Sunil Kumar learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners and none appearing for the respondent.

¶14

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 petitioners. In the absence of the same, the proceedings as against petitioners cannot be maintained and consequently, petitioners herein need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal trial.

¶15

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in D.V.A.No.4 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court III, Coimbatore, insofar as petitioners are allowed, 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) per month on or before 5^th of every English Calendar month to the credit of D.V.A.No.4 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court III, Coimbatore, 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.

¶16

Insofar as A1/husband of the respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in D.V.A.No.4 of 2016 is pending from the year 2016 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. 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.

¶17

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

¶18

Sd/-/Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

The Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Coimbatore.

¶24

2.do thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

¶25

+1cc to Mr.R.Sunil Kumar, Advocate SR.No. 36538

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.16483 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.Nos.7997, 7998 & 9073 of 2016

¶27

A.SK(13/05/2019)

¶28

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Duraisamy, Aged 45 Years Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

S.Geetha Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Jagadish C Bojani, M/a 70 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

T.Shanta Vs R.Nalini

Poyyathappan Vs the Inspector of Police

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