Allowed

Akilandam v. Aparna

Madras HC25 Nov 2019CRL OP(MD)/1250/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a criminal original petition seeking to quash domestic violence proceedings against petitioners (respondent's in-laws). The court held that as allegations were false and no violence occurred against them, the case against them could not be maintained. It directed the respondent's husband to deposit maintenance for conditional quashing.

What did the court decide?

Quashe proceedings against in-laws on condition that husband deposits Rs. 5,000 monthly as interim maintenance; trial completed within six months.

Akilandam Vs Aparna — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1250 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1250 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.589 and 590 of 2019

¶7

Akilandam

¶8

2.Chidambaram @ Ilanga

¶9

...Petitioners

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Aparna ... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the D.V.C.NO.21 of 2018, on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam and quash the same as illegal.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sivasubramanian

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.21 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam.

¶17

2.The petitioners are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between A1/Saravanan and the respondent was solemnized on 08.07.2014. 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.C. No.21 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam 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.21 of 2018 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners herein, who are in-laws of the respondent, pray to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.21 of 2018.

¶18

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶19

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

¶20

1/3

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1250 of 2019

¶22

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/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.

¶23

5.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.21 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam, 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.C. No.21 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam, as ad-interim 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.

¶24

6.Insofar as A1/husband of the respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in D.V.C.No.21 of 2018 is pending from the year 2018 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.

¶25

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

¶26

Assistant Registrar // True Copy //

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

das

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1250 of 2019

¶32

¶33

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam.

¶34

2.The Section Officer, (2 Copies) Criminal Section,

¶35

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶36

+1 CC to M/s.I. ROBERT CHANDRAKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-101230[F] dated 26/11/2019 )

¶37

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1250 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.589 and 590 of 2019 25.11.2019

¶38

JMN(09.12.2019) 3P : 5C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Akilandam v. Aparna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akilandam v. Aparna

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

Shanmugam Chettiyar Vs Lakshmanan Chettiyar

Gomathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Syed Salami, Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Marimuthu Vs The District Collector

A. Edmund Vs the Inspector of Police

Muthukrishnan, Vs the Deputy Superintendent of