Partly allowed

Rathidevi v. S.Vadivel

Madras HC7 Dec 2020CRL MP(MD)/5889/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged anticipatory bail granted in a matrimonial dispute. The High Court cancelled bail for the husband who failed to pay monthly maintenance despite undertaking to do so, while leaving bail for his mother-in-law intact, distinguishing her from the primary directed respondent.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the first respondent (Vadivel); bail of the second respondent (Pappa) remains unchanged; defense counsel's withdrawal application rejected.

Rathidevi Vs S.Vadivel — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL MP(MD) No.5889 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Seventh day of December Two Thousand and Twenty

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

CRL MP(MD) No.5889 of 2020 IN CRL OP(MD) No.3493 of 2018

¶7

RATHIDEVI ... PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶8

1 S.VADIVEL

¶9

2 PAPPA ... 1^st AND 2^nd RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED No.1 AND 2

¶10

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶11

ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHUR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.2/2018) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶12

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the first and second respondents /1st and 2nd accused in the above Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3493/2018 dated 27.7.2018.

¶13

Order : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.A.S.RAJESWARI, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.B.JANATH AHMED, Advocate for 2^nd Respondent, and MR.A.ROBINSON, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) on behalf of the 3^rd Respondent, the Court made the following order:-

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein. The learned counsel, who appeared for the accused in the criminal original petition, wants to withdraw his appearance.

¶15

2.The petitioner is the wife of the first respondent herein. It is a matrimonial issue. The respondents 1 and 2 applied for anticipatory bail. This Court granted anticipatory bail by recording the undertaking of the accused that the first respondent will pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- as monthly maintenance. The first respondent is employed in a reputed Hospital in Coimbatore and is said to be earning more than Rs.50,000/-. For the last 11 months, the first respondent has not paid the maintenance amount to the petitioner herein. The accused cannot claim that due to Corona, he could not mobilize the said amount. In fact, during this period, Hospitals are doing good business. Therefore, the accused cannot cite Corona as a reason. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/2

¶17

CRL MP(MD) No.5889 of 2020

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the accused also states that they had advised the accused to comply with the undertaking given before this Court. It appears that the accused has not heeded to the advise given by the Counsel. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would state that their withdrawal may be noted and notice may be issued to the accused.

¶19

4.I decline to do so. The learned counsel, who now appeared for the accused before this Court, had appeared in the main criminal original petition and represented the accused and got them relief. Therefore, the counsel cannot now state that they want to withdraw their appearance. In any event, there was a communication between the counsel and the accused after filing of this miscellaneous petition. I can note that the accused is playing a game of hide and seek with the Court. The non compliance of the undertaking given before this Court is also not disputed.

¶20

5.Therefore, I cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the first respondent herein namely Vadivel husband of the petitioner herein. The second respondent is only a mother-in-law. The direction to pay was only on the husband. Therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the mother-in-law is not disturbed. The relief given to the first respondent alone is set aside. This Miscellaneous Petition is partly allowed on these terms. It is for the third respondent to take note of this development.

¶21

sd/07/12/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶22

¶23

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THIRUPPATHUR.

¶24

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶25

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHUR, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶26

4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶27

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶28

+1. C.C. to M/S.A.S.RAJESWARI Advocate SR.No.24325(F)

¶29

ORDER IN

¶30

CRL MP(MD) No.5889 of 2020 IN CRL OP(MD) No.3493 of 2018 Date :07/12/2020

¶31

RMI

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PK/JC/SAR-III/22.12.2020 : 2P/6C

¶33

2/2

Rathidevi v. S.Vadivel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathidevi v. S.Vadivel

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

M. Syed Mohamed Vs the Inspector of Police

V. Senthil Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

V. Raja Vs R. Sakthivel

Narasimhan Vs The Inspector of Police

Rani Vs The Inspector of Police

Sirajdeen Vs The Inspector of Police