Allowed

Rakesh v. Sowndarya

Madras HC16 Apr 2019CRL OP/2431/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a criminal petition to quash domestic violence proceedings against the petitioner in-laws, ruling that harassment is high likely attributable to the husband. The court conditioned the quashing on the husband depositing interim maintenance and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in D.V.A.No.11 of 2018 quashed insofar as petitioners are concerned; husband directed to deposit Rs.5,000 monthly as ad-interim maintenance.

Rakesh Vs Sowndarya — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.04.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.2431 of 2019 and CRL.M.P.No.1588 of 2019

¶6

1.Rakesh

¶7

(This petition is dismissed insofar

¶8

as the 1st petitioner is concerned)

¶9

(As per order in Crl.M.P.Nos.1588 and 1589/2019 dated 30.01.2019 in Crl.O.P.No.2431/2019).

¶10

2.Shanthi
3.Selvam
4.Ivanya
5.Rajamani ... Petitioners
Vs.
Sowndarya ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to D.V.O.P.No.11 of 2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate - I, Pollachi and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioners: Mr.C.Prabakaran

¶13

For Respondent : No Appearance

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.A.No.11 of 2018, filed by the respondent herein, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate - I, Pollachi.

¶15

The petitioners 2 to 5 are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between A1/Rakesh and the respondent Viz., Sowndarya was solemnized on 27.10.2017. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes the respondent and her husband were living separately from the matrimonial home. Under these circumstances,

¶16

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

¶17

the respondent herein filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act in D.V.A. No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate - I, Pollachi and implicated the petitioners as parties to the petition and sought action as against them under Domestic Violence Act. The said D.V.A.11 of 2018 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners 2 to 5 herein who are the in-laws of the respondent pray to quash the proceedings in D.V.A.No.11 of 2018.

¶18

This petition is dismissed insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned. As per order in Crl.M.P.Nos.1588 and 1589 of 2019, dated 30.01.2019 in Crl.O.P.No.2431 of 2019.

¶19

Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and notice served on the respondent but none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

¶20

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 2 to 5/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 2 to 5 need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal trial.

¶21

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in D.V.A.No.11 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate - I, Pollachi, 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 D.V.A.No.11 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate - I, Pollachi, 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.

¶22

Insofar as A1/husband of the respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in D.V.A.No.11 of 2018 is pending from the year 2018 onwards, it would be appropriate to direct

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (AD-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Pollachi.
2. - do - Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Coimbatore.
+2 ccs to M/s.C.Prabakaran, Advocate, S.R.No.38726, 38301
CRL.O.P.No.2431 of 2019
and CRL.M.P.No.1588 of 2019
SKV(CO)
SSM(30/05/2019)

¶27

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

Rakesh v. Sowndarya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh v. Sowndarya

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

Manimala Vs C. Kandasamy

Srinivasan, Aged 67 Years, Vs Shakila Mohan Gandhi

Elumalai, M/61 Yrs Vs State Rep by

T.Gopal Vs the Inspector of Police

K.v.Narayanan Vs S.Harini

K.Megaram Vs Suresh