Allowed

M.Krishnamurthy v. K.Suguna

Madras HC14 Mar 2019CRL OP/20258/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court court quashed domestic violence proceedings under Sections 18-20 of the Domestic Violence Act. The court held that the proceedings were an abuse of process as the respondent suppressed material facts showing the parties were already divorced in 2011 and the petitioner remarried in 2013. Consequently, the complaint could not be sustained.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the proceedings in D.V.A.No. **(*)27** of 2014 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore and closed connected miscellaneous petitions.

M.Krishnamurthy Vs K.Suguna — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 14.03.2019 CORAM:

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.No. 20258 of 2015 and M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015

¶3

M.Krishnamurthy ... Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

K.Suguna ... Respondent

¶6

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and to quash the proceedings in D.V.A.No. (*)27 of 2014 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore.

¶7

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.A.No. (*)27 of 2014, filed by the respondent, of the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore.

¶8

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed domestic violence complaint as against the petitioner and sought for relief under Sections 18 to 20 of Domestic Violence Act. He further submitted that the petitioner got married with the respondent on 03.04.2006 on R.S.Puram, Rathina Vinayagar Temple, Coimbatore. Thereafter due to misunderstanding between them the petitioner/husband filed divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.551 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore on the ground of cruelty as against the respondent/wife. After receipt of the notice in divorce petition, the respondent/wife was not entered appearance and as such, the respondent/wife set exparte on 31.03.2011 and the Family Court, Coimbatore decreed the H.M.O.P.NO.551 of 2010 by an order dated 19.05.2011. Thereafter the petitioner got remarriage in the year 2013 and living separately. Therefore, the respondent had no connection with the petitioner herein. By suppressing the above facts, the respondent/wife presented the complaint claiming so many relief under the Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the proceeding.

¶9

Heard Mr. P. Sesubalan Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.

¶10

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

¶11

This petition has been filed to quash the proceeding initiated under the Domestic Violence Act by the respondent/wife. It is seen that the petitioner got married the respondent in the year 2006. Thereafter he filed divorce petition in HMOP.551 of 2010, in which the Family Court decreed the divorce petition by an order dated 19.05.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner got married with another women and living separately. Suppressing the above facts, the respondent filed petition seeking relief under Sections 18 to 20 of Domestic Violence Act. It is nothing but clear abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the complaint cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.

¶12

It is also seen that even after receipt of the notice of this Court, the respondent did not appear before this Court an it shows that she has no interest to proceed further the case filed under Domestic Violence Act.

¶13

In view of the above discussions, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the proceedings in D.V.A.No. (*)27 of 2014, of the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Coimbatore is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶14

Sd/Assistant Registrar (*)Amended as per Order dated 03.01.2020 CMP.No.19086/2019 in Crl.OP.NO.20258/2015 //True Copy// Sd/Assistant Registrar(IV) Sub Assistant Registrar rts

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Order to be substituted Coimbatore. for the order already despatched on 05/08/2019

¶18

CRL.O.P.No. 20258 of 2015 and M.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015

¶19

rr(co) nr 20/06/2019 CSR: 08/01/2020

¶20

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

M.Krishnamurthy v. K.Suguna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Krishnamurthy v. K.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

Kabadi Venkusa Hari Vs the Asst Collector of Customs

M.Jai Shankar Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Angulakshmi Vs M/S.N.S.Rathnam and Sons Rep

S.Nisha Vs M.Srirangan@Rangan

Axiz Bank Limited, Rep. by Its Vs Ms. Shalini D.Shetty

Nadira Nilopher Vs Fahmida Kouser