Allowed

K.P.Ashoka v. J.Catheriene

Madras HC7 Aug 2020CRL OP/6603/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by an in-law requesting quashing of Domestic Violence Act proceedings. The court held that protection orders against this living, non-accused in-law cannot be maintained and ordered quashing thereof, conditioned upon a monthly maintenance deposit by the husband.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings in D.V.C. No. 72 of 2019 concerning the petitioner, conditioned on the husband depositing Rs. 5,000 monthly as interim maintenance.

K.P.Ashoka Vs J.Catheriene — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.08.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶5

CRL.O.P.No.6603 of 2020

¶6

and

¶7

CRL.M.P.3647 of 2020

¶8

1.K.P.Ashoka
W/o. (Late) A.Subramani .. Petitioner/3 rd Respondent
DVC No.72 of 2019
Vs.
1.J.Catheriene
W/o.S.Jaiganesh .. 1 st Respondent/Complainant in
DVC No.72 of 2019
2.S.Jaiganesh
S/o.A.Subramani
3.S.Muralidharan
S/o.(Late) A.Subramani .. 2 nd & 3 rd Respondents/
1 st & 2 nd Respondents in
DVC No.72 of 2019

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to D.V.C.No.72 of 2019 pending on the file of the Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Saravanakumar For Respondents : No Appearance

¶11

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.72 of 2019, filed by the respondent herein, pending on the file of the Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.

¶12

The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the 1^st respondent and the marriage between S.Jaiganesh/2^nd respondent and the 1^st respondent Viz.,J.Catheriene was solemnized on 22.08.2005. Thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes the 1^st respondent and her husband were living separately from the

¶13

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

¶14

matrimonial home. Under this circumstance, the 1^st respondent herein filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C.No.72 of 2019 on the file of the Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai and implicated the petitioner herein as party to the petition and sought action as against them under Domestic Violence Act. The said D.V.C.72 of 2019 is pending for trial. At this stage, the petitioner herein who is the in-law of the 1^st respondent pray to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.72 of 2019.

¶15

Heard Mr.G.Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served on the respondent, none appeared for the respondents.

¶16

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, who is already a party in that case. The petitioner herein is the only in-law of the 1^st respondent and she is living separately. As such, the protection order sought for by the 1^st respondent herein in the domestic violence case against the petitioner/in-law, based on the allegations, cannot be maintained, in view of the fact that the allegations of harassment meted out by the petitioner against the 1^st 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 petitioner. In the absence of the same, the proceedings as against these petitioner cannot be maintained and consequently, the petitioner need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal trial.

¶17

In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.72 of 2019 on the file of the Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai insofar as the petitioner is concerned, on condition that, she shall ensure that the husband of the 1^st 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.72 of 2019 on the file of the Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai as ad-interim maintenance, without prejudice to both the parties, failing which this order shall stand automatically cancelled. On such deposit being made, the 1^st respondent is entitled to withdraw the same.

¶18

Insofar as husband of the 1^st respondent is concerned, since the impugned proceedings in D.V.C.No.72 of 2019 is pending from the year 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 husband of the 1^st 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.

¶19

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

¶20

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands

¶21

allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Metropolitian Magistrate,
Mahila Court,
Egmore, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
CRL.O.P.No.6603 of 2020
and CRL.M.P.No.3647 of 2020
mr (co)
rr ii (03/09/2020)

¶25

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

K.P.Ashoka v. J.Catheriene

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Ashoka v. J.Catheriene

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

Saravanan Vs State Rep. by

Rajiv Mittal Vs the State Rep.by Its

Karuppannan Vs the State Rep by

K.Kesavan Vs S.Gayathri

Velusamy Vs State Rep.by

M.Suresh Vs Siop Namakkal