Partly allowed

Sivakumar v. Sudhasini

Madras HC18 Sept 2019CRL OP(MD)/7902/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court partly allowed a Criminal Original Petition under CrPC Section 482 seeking quashing of Domestic Violence proceedings against the husband's in-laws. Proceedings against in-laws were quashed contingent on the husband depositing interim maintenance, while the petition against the husband was dismissed with a direction for expedited trial.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against in-laws quashed conditional on husband depositing Rs. 5,000 monthly maintenance; petition against husband dismissed with direction to complete trial in 6 months.

Sivakumar Vs Sudhasini — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7902 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 18.09.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7902 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.4813 & 4814 of 2019

¶7

Sivakumar

¶8

Ganesan

¶9

Krishnammal @ Mookkammal

¶10

Sumathi

¶11

Gopal

¶12

Murugan

¶13

...Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 6

¶14

-Vs-

¶15

Sudhasini ... Respondent/Complainant

¶16

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.1 of 2019 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni and quash the proceedings as against the petitioners herein.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Senguttuarasan For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkateswaran

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni.

¶20

2.The first petitioner is husband and the petitioners 2 to 6 are in-laws of the respondent and the marriage between the first petitioner/ Sivakumar and the respondent Viz., Sudhasini was solemnized on 06.09.2009 . 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.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni and implicated the petitioners as parties to the petition and sought https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/3

¶22

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7902 of 2019

¶23

action as against them under Domestic Violence Act. The said D.V.C.No.1 of 2019 is pending for trial. At this stage, the first petitioner, who is the husband and the petitioners 2 to 6 herein, who are the in-laws of the respondent, pray to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2019.

¶24

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

¶25

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/first petitioner, who is already a party in that case. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as far as the first petitioner/husband is concerned. The petitioners 2 to 6 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 to 6/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 to 6 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 to 6. In the absence of the same, the proceedings as against the petitioners 2 to 6 cannot be maintained and consequently, the petitioners 2 to 6 need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal trial.

¶26

5.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, insofar as the petitioners 2 to 6 are concerned, on condition that, they shall ensure that the first petitioner/ 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 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni, 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.

¶27

6.Insofar as the first petitioner/husband of the respondent is concerned, this Petition is dismissed. Since the impugned proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of 2019, is pending from the month of January 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. The first petitioner/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.

¶28

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

¶29

2/3

¶30

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7902 of 2019

¶31

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

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar()

¶34

// True Copy //

¶35

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶36

Ls To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Theni. 2.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2 copies)

¶37

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7902 of 2019 18.09.2019

¶38

SGS(CO) TR(16.10.2019) 3P 4C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Sivakumar v. Sudhasini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivakumar v. Sudhasini

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

Punitha Anthoniar Alayam Vs the District Collector

M/S.Elfin Ecom Pvt. Limited Vs The inspector of police

D.Soundharapandi Vs The inspector of police

Pandi Maruthayi Vs Geetharamani

Harshitha, Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs.D.Derens, Vs State Rep. by Its