Allowed

D.M.Manogaran v. S.Bhuvaneswari

Madras HC21 Mar 2019CRL OP/4895/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed criminal proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners (husband's in-laws) as allegations were false and they lived separately, directing the husband to deposit interim maintenance to maintain the quash order.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings against petitioners insofar as they are concerned on condition that husband deposits Rs. 5,000 monthly as interim maintenance.

D.M.Manogaran Vs S.Bhuvaneswari — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.03.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P.No.4895 of 2019 and CRL.M.P.No.2867 of 2019

¶5

1.D.Manogaran

¶6

2.Baby

¶7

... Petitioners/ Respondent 2 and 3

¶8

Vs.

¶9

S.Bhuvaneswari ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,. to call for the records pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet, Vellore District in D.V.C.No.1 of 2019 and quash the criminal proceedings.

¶11

For Petitioners: Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent : Mr.T.P.Prabakaran

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2019, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet, Vellore.

¶14

2.The petitioners are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between D.M.Karthikeyan and the respondent Viz.,S.Bhuvaneswari was solemnized on 08.06.2017. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes the respondent and her husband/ D.M.Karthikeyan were living separately from the matrimonial home. Under this circumstance, the respondent herein filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet, Vellore and implicated the petitioners as parties to the petition and sought action as against them under Domestic Violence Act. The said D.V.C.No.1 of 2019 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners herein pray to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2019.

¶15

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

¶16

3.Heard Mr.E.Kannadasan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.T.P.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶17

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, 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 the petitioners cannot be maintained and consequently, the petitioners need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal trial.

¶18

5.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet, Vellore, insofar as these petitioners are concerned, on condition that, they shall ensure that the 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.C.No.1 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet, Vellore, as adinterim 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.

¶19

6.Insofar as husband of the respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2019 is pending from the year 2019 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. The 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.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS iv) //True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

vv2

¶25

¶26

The Judicial Magistrate Court, Ranipet, Vellore.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.T.P.Prabakaran, Advocate SR.No. 27280 +1cc to Mr.E.Kannadasan , Advocate SR.No. 27159

¶28

CRL.O.P.No.4895 of 2019

¶29

A.SK(25/04/2019)

¶30

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

D.M.Manogaran v. S.Bhuvaneswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.M.Manogaran v. S.Bhuvaneswari

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

M.Bhuvaneswari Vs the Inspector of Police

H.Ramathilagam, Vs the Inspector General of

D.Kannappan, S/O.T.Duraisamy Vs the State Rep.by Inspector of

S.Nagarajan Vs the State Rep by Its

Cholarajan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sudhir Jhunjhunwala Vs the State Rep by Its