Allowed

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

Madras HC10 Apr 2019CRL OP/32511/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings instituted under the Domestic Violence Act. The court found the second petitioner falsified marriage details and noted a significant unexplained delay in filing the complaint, sustaining that allegations were false.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.7224 of 2013 were quashed and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Dr.R.Vilwanathan Vs Shobana W/O Dr.Viswanathan — 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.32511 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013

¶6

Dr.R.Vilwanathan
2. Pankajam
3. Dr.Anan Kumar
4. Subashini Priya
5. Arun Kumar ... Petitioners
Vs.
Shobana ...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section
482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and quash the
complaint in C.C.No.7224 of 2013 on the file of the
learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioners: Mr.T.Sundarajan
For Respondent : Mr.Ilayaperumal
ORDER

¶7

This petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to C.C.No.7224 of 2013 pending on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.

¶8

Heard Mr.T.Sundarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶9

It is seen from the records that the respondent herein filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act in C.C.No.7224 of 2013 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai alleging that the first petitioner is her husband and the marriage between them was solemnized on 17.10.1969. Out of their

¶10

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

¶11

wedlock two children were born and without her knowledge the first petitioner married the second petitioner and gave birth three children. It is also alleged that the first petitioner refused to maintain her and threatened her with dire consequences. Therefore, the respondent lodged a complaint implicating the petitioners as parties to the petition and sought action as against them under Domestic Violence Act. The said case in C.C.No.7224 of 2013 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners herein pray to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7224 of 2013.

¶12

It is seen that the marriage between the first petitioner and the second petitioner was solemnized on 04.03.1969 and due to their wedlock they gave birth to three children. Therefore before marring the respondent, the first respondent married the second petitioner. More over, the respondent lodged the complaint only in the year 2013 and no reason has been stated in the complaint for the delay in lodging the complaint. The protection order sought for by the respondent herein in the domestic violence case against these petitioners, 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 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 need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal trial.

¶13

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

¶14

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶15

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

rts

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

The Metropolitan Magistrate , X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai

¶20

+1cc to Mr. Ilayaperumal, Advocate SR.No. 35502 +1cc to Mr.T.Sundarajan , Advocate SR.No. 35935

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.32511 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013

¶22

A.SK(24/06/2019)

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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