Disposed

Iruthaya Sheepa v. Piradeev

Madras HC13 Mar 2023CRP(MD)/649/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Civil Revision Petition was filed to quash DV proceedings initiated by the respondent. The High Court held that the order should not be quashed but directed the Magistrate to take up proceedings conditional on the respondent depositing 50% of arrears.

What did the court decide?

C.R.P dismissed. Judicial Magistrate directed to proceed with Cr.M.P. No. 5046 of 2019 subject to Respondent depositing 50% of arrears.

Iruthaya Sheepa Vs Piradeev — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(MD)No.649 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.649 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.3009 of 2023

Iruthaya Sheepa

...Petitioner

Vs.

Pradeev

...Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the entire records pertaining to the petition filed by the respondent in Crl.M.P.No.8838 of 2019 in M.C.No. 136 of 2014 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi and strike off the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Robinson

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner herein has initiated DVC proceedings against the

¶16

respondent and in-laws in M.C.No.136 of 2014. The respondent had remained absent and was therefore set ex parte and an order came to be passed on 01.11.2017 whereby, the respondent herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance and Rs.15,00,000/-

¶17

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

¶18

1/5

¶19

C.R.P(MD)No.649 of 2023

¶20

towards compensation. Meanwhile, during the interregnum, the respondent has also initiated proceedings to divorce the petitioner in I.D.O.P.No.171 of 2017 before the District Court, Thoothukudi to dissolve the marriage. After the ex parte order was passed on 01.11.2017 in M.C.No.136 of 2014 by the Judicial Magistrate - I, Thoothukudi, the respondent has also filed Crl.M.P.No.1569 of 2019 to condone the daly of 406 days in filing the appeal. The said application was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Court, Thoothukudi vide order dated 04.03.2020. Thereafter, the respondent has initiated the impugned proceedings purportedly under Section 5 (2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

¶21

The reasons stated in the petition appears to be that on account of the ex parte decree passed on 01.11.2017, the respondent has suffered a lot and lost the job and is searching for a new job and that he is presently depending upon his family members for his survival. The petitioner had therefore filed an application stating that the order passed on 01.11.2017 was not complied and the attempt to file an appeal was also dismissed by the Principal Sessions Court, Thoothukudi in Crl.M.P.No.1569 of 2019 and that attmept under Section 25 (2) of the

¶22

Act was nothing but a delay in payment of compensation. The petitioner

¶23

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

¶24

2/5

¶25

C.R.P(MD)No.649 of 2023

¶26

has a remedy to defend herself before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi before whom Cr.M.P.No.5046 of 2019 has been filed by the respondent under Section 25 (2) of the Prevention of D.V. Act.

¶27

Considering the fact that the attempt of the respondent to file the appeal was dismissed by the Court on 04.03.2020, the learned Judicial Magistrate - I is directed to take up further proceedings in Cr.M.P.No. 5046 of 2019 subject to the respondent depositing 50% of the arrears of the amount due as determined vide order, dated 01.11.2017 in M.C.No. 136 of 2014. Subject to the aforesaid condition being complied by the respondent, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 shall proceed and pass orders in Cr.M.P.No.5046 of 2019 by giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein to file a counter.

¶28

The present Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

13.03.2023

¶30

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn

¶31

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

¶32

3/5

¶33

C.R.P(MD)No.649 of 2023

¶34

¶35

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi

¶36

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶37

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

¶38

4/5

¶39

C.R.P(MD)No.649 of 2023

¶40

C.SARAVANAN,J.

¶41

¶42

C.R.P(MD)No.649 of 2023

¶43

13.03.2023

¶44

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

¶45

5/5

Iruthaya Sheepa v. Piradeev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iruthaya Sheepa v. Piradeev

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

R. Kanagavathi Vs S. Radhakrishnan

P.Subashini Vs P.Palaniappan

M. Anupama, Vs A.S. Sandeep

S.Rudhradevi Vs a. Karthick Alias Arunraj

Muthumari Vs Masethung

Ruby Mary, Vs Selastin @ Raja