4.Contending that the second complaint, which is now being taken on file as C.C.No.76 of 2017, has been filed with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners and their son and abuse of process of law, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the second complaint was given to defeat the right of the petitioners to claim the custody of their minor grandchildren, which they are pursuing in G.W.O.P.No.20 of 2015, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. It is specifically contended that the second respondent herein came down to India along with her children deserting her husband living in U.S.A. to continue her illicit affair. She developed intimacy with one Suresh, a car driver working under her father. That was questioned by her parents as well as the petitioners, then she started making bald allegations against everybody and gave complaint to the Social Welfare Officer alleging domestic violence. The Social Welfare Officer enquired the matter and filed a report on 11.03.2013 disclosing that the second respondent has married Suresh, driver by profession. She is living with him along with two children in a rented house at Madurai. Therefore, the complaint was closed. Thereafter, she did not appear before the Court. Hence, her petition in Cr.M.P.No.366 of 2013 was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, on 20.08.2013, after perusal of the Social Welfare Officer's report. The statement of witnesses recorded in Crime No.4 of 2014 and the loan application form of the second respondent to the Tamilnad Mercantile Bank, disclosing the said Suresh as her husband though her marriage with Vijayakumar was not legally dissolved, falsified her complaint registered in Crime No.4 of 2014. The second respondent herself stating some reason, withdrew the complaint in Crime No.4 of 2014 as not pressed, only to file the present fresh complaint dated 10.11.2016, with distorted facts after receipt of the notice in G.W.O.P.No.20 of 2015. Therefore, C.C.No.76 of 2017 has to be quashed.
