Dismissed

S.Nirmala v. D.Prathiba

Madras HC5 Oct 2020CRL OP/23724/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed the Crl.O.P. seeking to quash a Domestic Violence Act petition filed against a mother-in-law. The court granted liberty to the mother-in-law to appear via advocate subject to specific conditions regarding identity affidavits and representation.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.O.P. was dismissed. The petitioner was directed to execute a bond of Rs. 10,000 under Section 88 Cr.P.C. and file an affidavit regarding identity and representation constraints.

S.Nirmala Vs D.Prathiba — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.10.2020 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

¶4

CRL.O.P.NO.23724 OF 2015

¶5

S.Nirmala

¶6

... Petitioner/Respondent

¶7

Vs.

¶8

D.Prathiba ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶9

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records of the case in D.V.A.No.67 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, quash the same.

¶10

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their names. Prathiba and Divakaran loved each other and they got married on 18.02.2010. After marriage, the couple lived separately for sometime and thereafter, they lived in the matrimonial home along with Divakaran and his mother Nirmala in Chennai.

¶11

It is the case of Prathiba that she was subjected to cruelty both by her husband and her mother-in-law and was driven away from the matrimonial home and therefore, she is living with her sister in Coimbatore. Under such circumstances, Prathiba filed D.V.A.No.67 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore, against her husband Divakaran and her mother- in-law Nirmala for various reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act, for quashing which, Nirmala is before this Court.

¶12

Notice was served on Prathiba. But, since she did not enter appearance, Ms.Vrindha Ramesh, Advocate, has been nominated by the High Court Legal Services Authority to represent her.

¶13

Heard Mr.P.Rajendra Kumar, learned counsel for Nirmala and Ms.Vrindha Ramesh, learned Legal Aid counsel for Prathiba.

¶14

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

¶15

Learned counsel for Nirmala submitted that Nirmala had no role in the marital affairs of her son and daughter-in-law and that she has been unnecessarily dragged into the litigation by her daughter-in-law.

¶16

Per contra, learned legal aid counsel for Prathiba

¶17

refuted the said allegations.

¶18

This Court, carefully perused the petition in D.V.A.No.67 of 2014 filed by Prathiba.

¶19

A reading of the petition shows that after marriage Divakaran and Prathiba lived in Chennai with Nirmala; in January 2011, Nirmala suffered a fracture in her leg, for which, Prathiba obtained a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment; Prathiba and her mother took care of Nirmala till she became completely alright; after that, neither her husband Divakaran nor Nirmala came forwarded to return the amount that was spent by Prathiba. Notwithstanding that, they both had even taken away her jewels also. Since there are prima facie materials in the petition filed by Prathiba, the proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold.

¶20

Learned counsel for Nirmala submitted that on account of old age and physical ailment, she is not able to attend the proceedings in Coimbatore.

¶21

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. It is reported that the case has been transferred from the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Coimbatore to Special Court for DV Act cases (Magesterial Level), Coimbatore, which is the trial Court now. Nirmala is directed to appear before the trial Court on 09.11.2020 and execute a bond for Rs.10,000/under Section 88 Cr.P.C. without sureties. Thereafter, her presence before the trial Court can be dispensed with, provided she engages an Advocate with Special Vakalat to represent her. She shall also file an affidavit that she will not dispute her identity and that the counsel appointed by her will crossexamine the witnesses in her absence without adopting dilatory tactics. Whenever the trial Court requires the presence of Nirmala, it can accordingly inform the counsel appointed by her and Nirmala shall appear before the trial Court.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

sni

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore.

¶30

Special Court for D.V Act cases, Magesterial Level, Coimbatore.

¶31

+1cc to Mr.P.Rajendra Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.32579

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.23724 of 2015

¶33

KJ(CO)
CS/03/11/2020

¶34

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

S.Nirmala v. D.Prathiba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Nirmala v. D.Prathiba

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.Mahendran Vs G.Senthil Kumar

M.Usha Vs State by

S.Tamilselvan Vs State Rep.by

Babu Vs State Rep.by

Babu Vs State Rep.by

Mr.Ilaya Perumal Vs State Rep. by Its