Allowed

Mrs. J. Chitra, Age 57 Yeas, v. Mrs. S. Swathy

Madras HC27 Feb 2019CRL OP/18448/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners (in-laws of the respondent) as they were not liable for maintenance. The husband was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000 monthly. The trial was directed to conclude within three months.

What did the court decide?

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

Mrs. J. Chitra, Age 57 Yeas, Vs Mrs. S. Swathy — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.02.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.18448 of 2016 and CRL.M.P.No.8695 of 2016

¶6

1.J.Chitra
2.I.Jayaprakash
3.C.Aparna ...Petitioners
Vs.
S.Swathy ...Respondent

¶7

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in M.C.No.12 of 2016 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and to quash the same as against the petitioners.

¶8

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Dhamodharan For Respondent : M/s.Thenmozhi Shiva Perumal O R D E R

¶9

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.12 of 2016, filed by the respondent herein, pending on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶10

2.The petitioners are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between Balamuralikrishna/A1 and the respondent Viz.,Swathy was solemnized on 01.12.2014. 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 M.C.No.12 of 2016 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and implicated the petitioners as parties to the petition and sought action as against them under Domestic Violence Act. The said M.C.No.12 of 2016 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners herein who are the inlaws of the respondent pray to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.12 of 2016.

¶11

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

¶12

3.Heard Mr.T.Dhamodharan learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Thenmozhi Shiva Perumal learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶13

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, 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.

¶14

5.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.12 of 2016, on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, 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 M.C.No.12 of 2016, on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, as ad-interim maintenance, without prejudice to both the parties, failing which this order shall stand automatically cancelled. On such deposit being made, the respondent is entitled to withdraw the same.

¶15

6.Insofar as A1/husband of the respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in M.C.No.12 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
vv2 Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1.The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai.
+1cc to Mrs.Thenmozhi Shiva Perumal, Advocate, S.R.No.18083
CRL.O.P.No.18448 of 2016
KS(CO)
SSM(27/03/2019).

¶19

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

Mrs. J. Chitra, Age 57 Yeas, v. Mrs. S. Swathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. J. Chitra, Age 57 Yeas, v. Mrs. S. Swathy

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

Sundaram Vs the Inspector of Police

Quentin Dawson Vs the Inspector of Police

Ravi @ Ravi Chandiran, M/46 Vs the Inspector of Police

Dr.J.Prabhakaran Vs State by

R.Sasina Vs the State, Represented by

M.Badrinarayanan Vs Anandan