In-laws sought quashing of domestic violence proceedings under the DV Act, claiming no shared residence and ulterior motive. The court, taking complaint allegations at face value, found specific allegations and refused to quash. It dispensed with their personal appearance at every hearing, allowing representation through counsel, and dismissed the revision.
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.No.1664 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.1664 of 2022 and
C.M.P.No.8273 of 2022
1.C.Malliga 2.Kanchana 3.K.Vaakeeswaran ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.S.Kalaiselvi
2.Minor Athithiya
3.Minor Adharsh 4.C.Senthilkumar
... Respondents
PRAYER: Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in D.V.Case No.2/2022 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham against the petitioners and set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Radha Pandian For respondents : Ms.S.Isha for Ms.P.Veena Suresh
ORDER
This revision challenges the proceedings in D.V.C.No.2 of 2022.
and sister-in-law's husband of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent 1/4
C.R.P.No.1664 of 2022
married the 4th respondent. From the wedlock, two children were born, who are the respondents 2 and 3 before me.
vexatious one and has been initiated as against them with an ulterior motive. They argue that they never resided with the respondents 1 to 4. The 4th respondent and the 1st respondent resided at Ullagaram, whereas the mother-in-law was residing in Nanganallur and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are residents of Gudiyatham. According to the petitioners, they never caused any domestic violence on the 1st respondent and therefore, the said proceedings have to be quashed.
not in a position to come to the rescue of the petitioners. As the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4
C.R.P.No.1664 of 2022
complaint makes out specific allegations against the in-laws, it is not liable to be quashed.
23.04.2024
Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Sgl
3/4
C.R.P.No.1664 of 2022
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Sgl
To
The Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.
C.R.P.No.1664 of 2022
23.04.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the DVC proceedings against the in-laws, who allegedly never resided with the aggrieved person, could be quashed at the threshold.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.Malliga
Kanchana
K.Vaakeeswaran
S.Kalaiselvi
Minor Athithiya
Minor Adharsh
V.Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
