Disposed

S.Ramalingam v. R.Gayathri

Madras HC28 Nov 2023CRP/1956/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Domestic Violence complaint filed by the wife against the husband and his relatives. The Court granted liberty to the husband and his family to seek appropriate relief before the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to in-laws to workout remedy before Trial Court by filing appropriate application for further relief.

S.Ramalingam Vs R.Gayathri — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

2024:MHC:5620

¶2

C.R.P.No.1956 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 28.11.2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶7

C.R.P.No.1956 of 2023

¶8

and

¶9

C.M.P.Nos.12361 & 12363 of 2023

1.S.Ramalingam

2.S.Ramani

3.S.Mahalakshmi

4.S.Poongodi

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.Smt. R.Gayathri

2.Minor. R.Pugazh S/o. Ramalingam, Represented by his Mother Natural Guardian, Smt. R.Gayathri, W/o. Ramalingam, No.2, Bajanai Koil Street, Rendadi Village, Sholinghur Taluk, Ranipet District.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the complaint filed under Domestic Violence Act, in D.V.C.No.3 of 2022, on the file of Judicial Magistrate at Sholinghur.

¶20

Page 1 of 6

¶21

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

¶22

C.R.P.No.1956 of 2023

¶23

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Gouthaman For Respondents : Mr.K.G.Senthil Kumar

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the complaint

¶26

filed against the 1^st petitioner and in-laws of the 1^st petitioner filed by the 1^st respondent in D.V.C.No.3 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the marriage

¶28

between the 1^st petitioner and the 1^st respondent was solemnised as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 27.05.2018. From and out of wedlock between the 1^st petitioner and the 1^st respondent a male child was born. Due to matrimonial disputes they are living separately. The 1^st respondent filed D.V.C.No.3 of 2022 based on the vague allegations on the 1^st petitioner and his in-laws, which are not maintainable. It is also submitted that since the 1^st respondent had illegal intimacy with one Saisabari and when it was questioned, the relationship between the husband and wife has been aggravated. Therefore, the 1^st respondent had left the matrimonial house voluntarily along with the

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P.No.1956 of 2023

¶32

child. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2022 for divorce. Aggrieved by the same, the 1^st respondent has filed a complaint against the 1^st petitioner and his in-laws.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is no cause of action to file case against the parents and in-laws of the petitioner. It is stated that parents of the petitioner were living in their native village and his sister namely Mrs.S.Poongodi also settled along with her family in Thiruvannamalai and she is employed in a Government School as a Teacher. Hence, there is no allegation against the 4^th petitioner, who is the sister-in-law of the 1^st respondent and all the in-laws of the petitioners were dragged to the complaint purposely. Therefore, the 1^st petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition to quash the complaint filed by the 1^st respondent.

¶34

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on suspecting the character of the 1^st respondent, the 1^st petitioner left India and went to abroad for more than two years. It is contended that the 1^st petitioner left her and has not taken care of herself and her child. Due to the harassment caused by the other in-laws of the 1^st petitioner, who were living at the ground

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P.No.1956 of 2023

¶38

floor during the relevant period, she has filed D.V.C.No.3 of 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur.

¶39

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties in the Civil Revision Petition, this Court is of an opinion that H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2022 proceedings has been filed by the 1^st petitioner seeking for divorce. But as on date, 1^st respondent is having a little male child and she is aged about 25 years and living along with her parents. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the 1^st respondent is not acceptable as there is no cause of action found on the in-laws of the 1^st petitioner. Thus, liberty is granted to the in-laws of the 1^st petitioner to workout their remedy before the Trial Court by filing an appropriate application for further relief.

¶40

In view of the facts and circumstances, the reasons assigned by the 1^st petitioner is also not been decided merely based on the allegations and that needs a concrete evidence. Therefore, they are at liberty to workout their remedy by approaching the Trial Court. However, by considering the age of the parents and they are living in different places, except the appearance of the 1^st petitioner, all other petitioners appearance are dispensed with before

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

C.R.P.No.1956 of 2023

¶44

the Trial Court.

¶45

With this liberty, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. No

¶46

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶47

28.11.2023

¶48

Jeni Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No

¶49

¶50

The Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur.

¶51

Page 5 of 6

¶52

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

¶53

C.R.P.No.1956 of 2023

¶54

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶55

Jeni

¶56

C.R.P.No.1956 of 2023

¶57

28.11.2023

¶58

Page 6 of 6

¶59

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

S.Ramalingam v. R.Gayathri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ramalingam v. R.Gayathri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Vs Vijayalakshmi

Sivaranjani Vs Manikandan @ Sivakumar

M.Monica Vs S.R.Vinothraj

P. Jayakumar Vs N. Mohan Babu

Young Mens Christian Association Vs a.John

Ganansekaran, Vs Govindamal (Died)