Allowed

Srinivasan, Aged 67 Years, v. Shakila Mohan Gandhi

Madras HC15 Apr 2019CRL OP/2003/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition to quash domestic violence proceedings against the petitioner in-laws. Holding that allegations of harassment were false and relief could be claimed against the husband, the proceedings were quashed against the petitioners subject to ensuring monthly interim maintenance deposit by the husband.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in D.V.A.No.19 of 2017 quashed against petitioners, conditional upon husband depositing Rs. 5,000 monthly as interim maintenance.

Srinivasan, Aged 67 Years, Vs Shakila Mohan Gandhi — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

CRL.O.P.NO. 2003 OF 2018

¶6

AND CRL.M.P.NOS. 762 & 763 OF 2018

¶7

Srinivasan
2. Devika
3. Kuberan ... Petitioners
Vs.
Shakila Mohan Gandhi ...Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners in D.V.Case No.19 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.A.M.Rahamath Ali For Respondent : Ms.Auxilia Peter O R D E R

¶10

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.A.No.19 of 2017, filed by the respondent herein, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur.

¶11

The petitioners are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between A1/S.Jagannathan and the respondent Viz.,M.Shakila Mohan Gandhi was solemnized on 10.05.2015. 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.19 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and implicated the petitioners as parties to the petition and sought action as against them under Domestic Violence Act. The said D.V.A.19 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.A.No.19 of 2017.

¶12

Heard Mr.A.M.Rahamath Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Auxilia Peter, learned counsel

¶13

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

¶14

appearing for the respondent.

¶15

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.

¶16

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in DVA.No.19 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur, 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 DVA.No.19 of 2017, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ambattur as adinterim 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.

¶17

Insofar as A1/husband of the respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in DVA.No.19 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.

¶18

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

¶19

-Sd/Assistant Registrar // True Copy //

¶20

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

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

¶22

1 The Judicial Magistrate,

¶23

Ambattur.

¶24

+1 CC to Ms.Auxilia Peter, Advocate sr 37435(28/06/2019)

¶25

CRL.O.P.No. 2003 of 2018 and CRL.M.P.Nos. 762 & 763 of 2018

¶26

VP(CO)
RRI 08/06/2019

¶27

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

Srinivasan, Aged 67 Years, v. Shakila Mohan Gandhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasan, Aged 67 Years, v. Shakila Mohan Gandhi

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

S. Asokan Vs State Rep. by

S.Kudiyarasu Devi Vs the State Rep by Its

Vis-ram Financial Services Ltd. Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

T.Natarajan, Vs State

Manimala Vs C. Kandasamy

Elumalai, M/61 Yrs Vs State Rep by