Dismissed

R. Vinayagamurthy, v. Seeyathammal

Madras HC6 Dec 2021CRL OP/19325/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to quash a maintenance petition based on the respondent's prior acquittal in a cheating case. The Court held that acquittal does not warrant quashing and such merits must be determined in the trial court, dismissing the petition as premature.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition to quash the maintenance complaint was dismissed, and the miscellaneous petition was closed.

R. Vinayagamurthy, Vs Seeyathammal — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 06.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl. O.P. No.19325 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.11705 of 2017

¶6

R.Vinayagamurthy

¶7

...Petitioner Vs.

¶8

Seeyathammal ...Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in M.C.76 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai and quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.G.K.Sekar

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.N.Velayudam

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in M.C.76 of 2017 on the file of Hon'ble VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai and quash the same.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is not legally wedded wife and previously instituted a criminal complaint, which has ended in acquittal. Therefore, she cannot claim for maintenance. Hence, prayed to quash the complaint.

¶15

At the outset, this Court is of the view that mere acquittal in the earlier complaint for the offence under Section 417 of IPC is not a ground to presume that the entire private complaint for claiming maintenance has to be quashed. At the threshold, it is not disputed that the child is born out of the relationship. In such view of the matter, whether or not petitioner is not entitled to any maintenance has to be seen

¶16

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

¶17

only in the Trial Court. At this stage, it is premature to quash the petition.

¶18

Accordingly, quashing of the complaint cannot be considered and this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. It is for the petitioner to take all his defence before the trial Court.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

msv

¶24

¶25

The VI Additional Family Judge, Chennai.

¶26

Crl. O.P. No.19325 of 2017 and Crl.M.P.No.11705 of 2017

¶27

KG(CO) CT/17/12/2021

¶28

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

R. Vinayagamurthy, v. Seeyathammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Vinayagamurthy, v. Seeyathammal

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

K.P.Sainaba, Aged 40 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Ponnupappa F/a 52 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Gowtham Chand Sethiya, Vs the State Rep. by

P.Thamizh, Aged 32 Years, Vs State Rep. by

Krishnan, M/a 65 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Vetri Alias Vetri Murugesan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu