Allowed

Ilango,S/O. Athinamaligai, v. K. Sinduja

Madras HC16 Oct 2019CRL OP(MD)/21445/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench quashed DV proceedings against petitioners (husband's in-laws) due to false allegations. The court ordered the husband to deposit monthly maintenance to allow respondent to withdraw proceedings against in-laws.

What did the court decide?

Quashed DV proceedings against petitioners; directed husband to deposit Rs. 5,000 monthly to respondent; directed trial court to complete trial within six months.

Ilango,S/O. Athinamaligai, Vs K. Sinduja — Madras HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21445 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.10.2019 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶3

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21445 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9933 and 9932 of 2018

¶4

1.Ilango

¶5

2.Baby Ilango

¶6

... Petitioners/Respondents 2&3

¶7

Vs.

¶8

K.Sinduja ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records relating to D.V.C.No.27 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Trichy and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Gokulraj For Respondent : Mrs.J.Anandavalli

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.27 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Trichy.

¶13

The petitioners are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between A1/Venkatesh and the respondent Viz., Sinduja was solemnized on 09.12.2016. 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 Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, in D.V.C.No.27 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, and implicated the petitioners as parties to the petition and sought action as against them under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. The said D.V.C.No.27 of 2018 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners herein, who are the in-laws of the respondent, prays to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.27 of 2018.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶15

It is seen that the relief sought for by the respondent in the domestic violence case with regard to residential rights, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/3

¶17

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21445 of 2018

¶18

compensation, etc., can be made and claimed as against her husband, who is already a party in that case. The petitioners herein are inlaws 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 Section 12 of 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.

¶19

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.27 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, 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.27 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Trichy, 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.

¶20

6.Insofar as A1/husband of the respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in D.V.C.No.27 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy //

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶24

¶25

The Additional Mahila Court, Trichy.

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21445 of 2018

¶29

The Section Officer, Criminal Section,(2 copies) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶30

+1 CC to M/s.J.ANANADHAVALLI, Advocate ( SR-92348[F] dated 17/10/2019 ) +1 CC to Mr.S.GOKULRAJ, Advocate ( SR-92658[F] dated 17/10/2019 ) Crl.O.P.(MD)No.21445 of 2018 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.9933 and 9711 of 2018 16.10.2019 (½)

¶31

vsd MK (06.11.2019) 3P 6C

¶32

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

¶33

3/3

Ilango,S/O. Athinamaligai, v. K. Sinduja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ilango,S/O. Athinamaligai, v. K. Sinduja

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

P.Balasubramanian M/a 36 Years Vs

Ramu, S/O. Peria Karuppan, Vs State by the Inspector of

Fathima Mary Vs Pattenraj

D.Anitha, Aged 43 Years, Vs Ganthimathi

D.Anitha, Aged 43 Years, Vs S.Gopalan

A.Subash Vs J.Aranganathan