In-laws sought quashing of a domestic violence complaint on the ground they resided outside Tiruppur and never lived with the complainant. The court held allegations against them must be tried, refused to quash, but dispensed with their personal presence at non-essential hearings in view of their age and distance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.PD.No.1614 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.PD.No.1614 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.8616 and 8617 of 2024
1.S.Ulaganathan 2.U.Somasundaram 3.S.Rojamani 4.S.Kurinjimalar ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.B.Maha Meenakatchi 2.U.Somasundara Bharathi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the D.V.C.No.28 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Tiruppur.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Myilsamy
ORDER
This revision seeks to strike off D.V.C.No.28 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 at Tiruppur.
1/5
C.R.P.PD.No.1614 of 2024
in-law and sisters of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent Somasundara Bharathi is the husband of the 1st respondent Maha Meenakatchi. The 1st respondent alleges that she had faced domestic violence in the hands of the petitioners and the 2nd respondent and therefore she presented D.V.C.No.28 of 2023.
petitioner is aged about 81 years and the other petitioners are either residents of Sivaganga or Kancheepuram and they have nothing to do with the D.V.C. set up at Tiruppur. He would state that at all points of time, the 1st and 2nd respondents were residing together, and therefore the in-laws have been roped in the case unnecessarily.
the proceeding at this stage. Whether the petitioners indulged in domestic https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5
C.R.P.PD.No.1614 of 2024
violence or whether they are innocent of the said charge can be gone into
only at the time of trial. Hence, I am not inclined to quash D.V.C.No.28 of 2023. However, I am able to notice some force in the argument of Mr.K.Myilsamy that most of the petitioners are either geriatric or senior citizens. Apart from that, to make them travel from Sivaganga and Kancheepuram to Tiruppur would add to their agony that they are already facing. Hence, their presence is dispensed with for all the hearings other than the essential hearings. For the other non-essential hearings, they will be represented by a counsel.
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
also dismissed.
12.04.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Sgl
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur.
3/5
C.R.P.PD.No.1614 of 2024
4/5
C.R.P.PD.No.1614 of 2024
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Sgl
C.R.P.PD.No.1614 of 2024
12.04.2024
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether D.V.C.No.28 of 2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruppur could be struck off against the petitioners.
Whether the presence of the elderly petitioners, residing outside Tiruppur, could be dispensed with at non-essential hearings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.Ulaganathan
U.Somasundaram
S.Rojamani
S.Kurinjimalar
B.Maha Meenakatchi
U.Somasundara Bharathi
V.Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
