Allowed

Rajesh v. Nivetha

Madras HC5 Nov 2019CRL OP(MD)/13945/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a quashing petition filed by the respondent's in-laws under Section 482 CrPC against domestic violence proceedings. The court found no case against them as separate living in-laws without direct allegations, granting quashing conditioned on the husband depositing interim maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Quash proceedings in D.V.C.No.02 of 2019 insofar as petitioners are concerned; direct husband to deposit Rs. 5,000 monthly as ad-interim maintenance; direct trial court to complete trial within six mo

Rajesh Vs Nivetha — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13945 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13945 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8501 of 2019

¶7

Rajesh

¶8

2.Ariyadoss

¶9

3.Tamaraiselvi ... petitioners/Respondents 1 to3

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Nivetha ... Respondent/Complainant

¶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.02 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur and quash the same in so far as these petitioners are concerned.

¶13

For petitioners : Mr.K.M.Karunakaran For Respondent : No Appearance

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.02 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur.

¶16

2.The petitioners 2 & 3 are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between A1/Rajesh and the respondent Viz., Nivetha was solemnized on 21.09.2017. 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.02 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur, and implicated the petitioners 2 & 3 as parties in the petition and sought action as against them under Domestic Violence Act. The said D.V.C.No.02 of 2019 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners 2 & 3 herein, who are the in-laws of the respondent, pray to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.02 of 2019. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/3

¶18

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13945 of 2019

¶19

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 2 & 3 and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶20

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 2 & 3 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 the petitioners 2 & 3/in-laws, based on the allegations, cannot be maintained, in view of the fact that the allegations of harassment meted out by the petitioners 2 & 3 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 2 & 3. In the absence of the same, the proceedings as against these petitioners 2 & 3 cannot be maintained and consequently, the petitioners 2 & 3 need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal trial.

¶21

5.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.02 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur, insofar as these petitioners 2 & 3 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.02 of 2019 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur, 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.

¶22

6.Insofar as A1/husband of the respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in D.V.C.No.02 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. 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.

¶23

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

¶24

Assistant Registrar (AD-I)

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

dss

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13945 of 2019

¶31

¶32

The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.K.M.KARUNAKARAN, Advocate ( SR-96134[F] dated 05/11/2019 )

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13945 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8501 of 2019 05.11.2019

¶35

JMN(20.11.2019) 3P : 3C

¶36

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

¶37

3/3

Rajesh v. Nivetha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh v. Nivetha

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

K.Ramesh Kumar Vs P.Sivanandhan

M/S. Sree Guruvayurappan Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. Vs G.Jayesh

Sundaramoorthy Vs the State Rep. by

N.Balarayan Vs B.Manoranjitham

R.Sanjeevi, Aged 61 Years, Vs Pushpalatha, Aged 53 Years

Madan Kumar @ Avr Varshan Vs R.Ramya