Allowed

Subbulakshmi v. S. Jegathambal

Madras HC17 Oct 2019CRL OP(MD)/4981/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of the Madras High Court quashed the domestic violence proceedings against the petitioners, who are in-laws, on the ground that allegations of harassment were false and they were not liable. The court directed the husband to deposit maintenance and ordered a speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of domestic violence proceedings against petitioners (in-laws) subject to husband depositing Rs.5,000 monthly as interim maintenance.

Subbulakshmi Vs S. Jegathambal — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4981 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.10.2019

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4981 of 2018 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.2443 & 2444 2018

¶6

1.Subbulakshmi

¶7

2.Tamilselvi

¶8

3.Umamaheswari

¶9

4.Kalimuithu ... Petitioners/Respondents 2 to 5

¶10

Vs.

¶11

S.Jegathambal 2.S.J.Kishore Kanna ... Respondents/Petitioners

¶12

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Virudhunagar and quash the same as illegal in so far as these petitioners are concerned.

¶13

For Petitioners : Mr.V.S.Karthi

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.M.Jothibasu

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petitioner has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Virudhunagar.

¶17

2.The petitioners are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between A1/ Saravanamuthupandian and the first respondent Viz., S.Jegathambal was solemnized on 16.06.2006 . Thereafter, due to matrimonial dispute the first respondent and her husband were living separately from the matrimonial home. Under this circumstance, the first respondent herein filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C.No.9 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Virudhunagar, 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.9 of 2017 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners herein, who are the in-laws of the first respondent, pray to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2017.

¶18

3.2. Heard Mr.V.S.Karthi, learned counsel appearing for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/3

¶20

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4981 of 2018

¶21

petitioners and Mr.M.Jothibasu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶22

4.It is seen that the relief sought for by the first 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 first respondent and they are living separately. As such, the protection order sought for by the first 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 first 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.9 of 2017 on the file of the learned learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Virudhunagar, 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.9 of 2017 on the file of the learned learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Virudhunagar, as adinterim maintenance, without prejudice to both the parties, failing which this order shall stand automatically cancelled. On such deposit being made, the first respondent is entitled to withdraw the same.

¶24

6.Insofar as A1/husband of the first respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2017 is pending from the month of July 2017 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 first respondent is directed to appear before the trial Court on the next hearing date, failing which, the first respondent is at liberty to approach this Court.

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4981 of 2018

¶33

dss

¶34

¶35

The learned Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Virudhunagar.

¶36

+1CC TO MR.G.M.LAW OFFICE, Advocate Sr. No. 92828

¶37

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4981 of 2018 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.2443 & 2444 2018 17.10.2019

¶38

AVS(CO) TR(30.10.2019) 3P 3C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Subbulakshmi v. S. Jegathambal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subbulakshmi v. S. Jegathambal

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

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

D.Anitha, Aged 43 Years, Vs Ganthimathi

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

Mr.v.Suresh Babu, Aged 44 Year Vs Mrs.Hemalatha

Arulkumar Vs the State Rep by Its

Sebastin Princess Vs M.Somasundaram