Allowed

Deivegam v. Vasanthi

Madras HC21 Oct 2024CRP/1783/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Domestic violence proceedings were challenged by the husband's parents under Article 227. The parties settled: the in-laws undertook not to interfere with possession and paid fixed deposits for the two minor children. With consent, the court quashed the DVC against the revision petitioners and fifth respondent.

What did the court decide?

D.V.C.No.1 of 2024 quashed against the civil revision petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 therein; continues against respondents 1 and 2; miscellaneous petitions closed.

Deivegam Vs Vasanthi — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.1783 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.1783 of 2024 and CMP.Nos.9412 & 9399 of 2024

1.Deivegam

2.Aswathi

... Petitioners

Vs.

1.Vasanthi

2.Minor Dhekshita

¶13

3.Minor Lakshith

¶14

Both Rep.by their Guardian Mother Vasanthi

4.Sathish Kumar

5.Zubaitha

6.Saranya

... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the D.V.C. No.01 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vazhapadi and quash the same.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Kripakaran For Respondent : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam O R D E R

¶21

This civil revision petition is filed seeking to call for the records

¶22

relating to DVC No.1 of 2024, on the file of the District Munsif Cum

¶23

Judicial Magistrate, Vazhapadi and to quash the same.

¶24

1 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P.(PD).No.1783 of 2024

¶27

2.When this revision was listed for final hearing, I heard

¶28

Mr.A.Kripakaran for the petitioners and Mr.T.Sundaravadanam for the respondents. I pointed out to Mr.A.Kripakaran that the relationship between the parties are admitted and that the respondents 1 to 3 who are residing in the first floor portion of the property, are entitled to continue in the premises as it is a property, now owned by the 1^st respondent's husband.

¶29

3.The petitioners, who are the Mother-in-law and Father-in-law of the

¶30

first respondent, undertook not to interfere with the possession of the respondents 1 to 3 with respect to the property in which they are residing. Further more, Mr.A.Kripakaran undertook to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/each in the name of minor respondents 2 and 3. The learned counsel for the respondents agreed to the said proposal.

¶31

4.I also called upon to file an affidavit that they will not interfere with the possession of respondents 1 to 3 and the property situated at D.No.2/128, Kullampalli, Kaaduvalavu Kullampatti Village and Post, Vazhapadi Taluk,

¶32

2 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P.(PD).No.1783 of 2024

¶35

Salem District. Subsequently, Mr.A.Kripakaran filed an affidavit of the Father-in-law and Mother-in-law, undertaking not to cause any disturbance to the respondents 1 to 3. This affidavit was filed on 21.08.2024 and it was taken on file on the same day.

¶36

5.Subsequently, Mr.A.Kripakaran brought forth a fixed deposit for a

¶37

sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the name of Miss.Deepshika. This complied only with the first provision of the undertaking. Today, Mr.A.Kripakaran has produced an another fixed deposit in the name of Master Lakshith for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Both the amounts will mature when the children attain the age of majority. Both fixed deposit receipts have been received by the counsel representing the respondents 1 to 3.

¶38

6.Both sides have no objection if the proceedings in D.V.C.No.1 of

¶39

2024 are quashed, insofar as the civil revision petitioners and the fifth respondent in D.V.C are concerned. Being a family dispute and in the nature of a civil proceeding, I am inclined to accept the request for quashing

¶40

3 of 5

¶41

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

¶42

C.R.P.(PD).No.1783 of 2024

¶43

the complaint.

¶44

7.Accordingly, C.R.P.(PD).No.1783 of 2024 is allowed. DVC No.1 of 2024 will stand quashed as against the civil revision petitioners and the fifth respondent in DVC No.1 of 2024. DVC No.1 of 2024 will continue against Mr.Sathish Kumar and Zubaitha/1^st and 2^nd respondents in DVC No.1 of 2024. D.V.C. shall stands quashed as against respondents 3 to 5 in D.V.C. No.1 of 2024. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶45

sli 21.10.2024 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order NCC: Yes/No

¶46

To:

¶47

The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vazhapadi.

¶48

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

¶49

4 of 5

¶50

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

¶51

C.R.P.(PD).No.1783 of 2024

¶52

sli

¶53

C.R.P.(PD).No.1783 of 2024

¶54

21.10.2024

¶55

5 of 5

¶56

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

Deivegam v. Vasanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deivegam v. Vasanthi

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

S. Santhoshkumar Vs Karkulali

V. Amuthavalli Vs P. Hemalatha

Lalitha Vs Dhakshinamoorthy

V. Bakkialakshmi Vs Venkatesa Achari(Died)

S. Neela Vs Pattammal

Duraisamy Vs Ramakrishnan