Partly allowed

Praveen Amalraj v. I.Ramya Valantina

Madras HC31 Oct 2019CRL OP(MD)/7059/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court quashed domestic violence proceedings against the petitioners, who were the respondent's in-laws, as they were not proper parties to the allegations of violence against the respondent's husband. The court mandated the husband to deposit maintenance to the court rather than the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3; directed husband to deposit Rs. 5,000 monthly to court as interim maintenance.

Praveen Amalraj Vs I.Ramya Valantina — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7059 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 31.10.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶4

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7059 of 2018 and Crl.MP.(MD)Nos.3364 & 3365 of 2018

¶5

1.Praveen Amalraj 2.Mary Puspaleela 3.Joseph

¶6

... Petitioners/Respondents

¶7

Vs.

¶8

I.Ramya Valantina ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶9

PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for records in D.V.C.No.26 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Trichy and quash the same as illegal.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondent : Mr.A.Joel Paul Antony

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.26 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Trichy.

¶13

2.The petitioners 2 and 3 are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between A1 / Praveen Amalraj and the respondent Viz., I.Ramya Valantina was solemnized on 08.09.2016. 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 Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C.No.26 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 Domestic Violence Act. The said D.V.C.No.26 of 2018 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioners 2 and 3 herein, who are the in-laws of the respondent, pray to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.26 of 2018.

¶14

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

¶15

4.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.7059 of 2018

¶18

compensation, etc., can be made and claimed as against her husband, who is already a party in that case. The petitioners 2 and 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 and 3 / inlaws, based on the allegations, cannot be maintained, in view of the fact that the allegations of harassment meted out by the petitioners 2 and 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 the petitioners 2 and 3. In the absence of the same, the proceedings as against the petitioners 2 and 3 cannot be maintained and consequently, the petitioners 2 and 3 need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal trial.

¶19

5.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.26 of 2018 on the file of the learnedAdditional Mahila Court, Trichy, insofar as the petitioners 2 and 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.26 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.26 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

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

¶22

Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy //

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

¶24

dss

¶25

¶26

The Additional Mahila Court Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Trichy

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7059 of 2018

¶30

+1 CC to Mr.R.J.KARTHICK, Advocate ( SR-95422[F] dated 01/11/2019 ) +1 CC to Mr.A. JOEL PAUL ANTONY, Advocate ( SR-95624[F] dated 01/11/2019 )

¶31

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7059 of 2018 and Crl.MP.(MD)Nos.3364 & 3365 of 2018 31.10.2019

¶32

MK (25.11.2019) 3P 4C

¶33

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

¶34

3/3

Praveen Amalraj v. I.Ramya Valantina

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Amalraj v. I.Ramya Valantina

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

Benazir Vs The Inspector of Police

Chandru @ Ramachandran Vs Inspector of Police

M.Suganya Vs M.Muniasamy

N.R.Ayaz Ahmed Vs R.Ravikumar

Murugesan Vs Padmavathy

Pasupathy Vs State Rep by