Dismissed

Dhanalakshmi v. T.v.Sathyanarayanan

Madras HC9 Nov 2023CRL OP/25634/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed under Maintenance Act. The petitioner sought re-examination of witnesses after the lower court closed evidence due to non-compliance. The High Court held that indulgence was denied given non-attendance by the respondent and the overall delay of nine years in the trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dhanalakshmi Vs T.v.Sathyanarayanan — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.25634 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :09.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.25634 of 2023

¶7

1.Dhanalakshmi

¶8

2.S.Chmundeeswari ... Petitioners Vs . T.V.Sathyanarayanan ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, pleased to set aside the order dated 20.05.2022 passed in M.P.No.152/2020 in M.C.No.484/2014 passed by the learned VII Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶10

For Petitioners : Ms.Shahila Banu

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner herein filed maintenance case before the Family Court,

¶13

Chennai in the year 2014 had taken out an application under Section 311

¶14

Cr.P.C., to examine herself and the 2^nd petitioner Chamudeeswari who is her

¶15

daughter.

¶16

1/4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.25634 of 2023

¶19

2. The petition filed on 11.03.2019 was taken up for consideration

¶20

by the Family Court and the same was allowed with a direction that she should be present for examination along with other witnesses on 20.05.2022. The petitioner though present did not choose to mount the witness box. Recording the same, the Family Court has closed the petition and proceed to the next stage.

¶21

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on 20.05.2022, the respondent was not present, therefore, re-examination of the petitioner could not be done and further since on that day the petitioner was not well, suffering from fever could not comply the condition imposed by the Court, while allowing recall petition. Contending that the reason stated by the Court for closing evidence is neither sound nor correct. The impugned order dated 20.05.2022 reads as below:

¶22

“Petitioner present. Respondent absent.

¶23

Petitioner not chosen to examine any of her witness. So, this petition is sufficient for dismissal as condition of this Court not complied with.”

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

2/4

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.25634 of 2023

¶27

4. The said impugned order reading with the reason stated under

¶28

Section 311 Cr.P.C., which was allowed on condition clearly show that the 2^nd petitioner, the daughter of the respondent had filed proof affidavit as early as on 11.03.2019 and therefore, for her examination, the recall petition been filed. Though the Family Court has allowed the recall petition on a specific condition that on that day the witness must be present, the witness was not present. In the absence of the respondent, it cannot be taken advantage of the petitioner herein, who has sought indulgence of this Court to reopen the case, was specifically directed to be present on 20.05.2023 for recording the evidence. Hence this Court finds no reason to entertain the petition more particularly taking note of the fact that the Maintenance case was filed in the year 2014 and till date even after lapse of 9 years no fruitful progress made in the case. Hence this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶29

09.11.2023

¶30

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No rpl To

¶31

The VII Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

3/4

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.25634 of 2023

¶35

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

¶36

rpl

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.25634 of 2023

¶38

09.11.2023

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

4/4

Dhanalakshmi v. T.v.Sathyanarayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dhanalakshmi v. T.v.Sathyanarayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prof.Dr.E.Balagurusamy Vs K.P.Anbalagan

Karthik Vyas Vs Gopalji Agarwar

Shanmugam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sheejamary Vs Inspector of Police

Kamesh Mathew Vs the State Rep by Its

Moutto Ayyasamy Vs State Rep. by