A husband sought quashing of a domestic violence complaint filed against him as a counter blast to his divorce petition. Relying on a Full Bench judgment, the court declined to entertain the revision since the domestic relationship was admitted and dismissed the petition, leaving strike-off to the Judicial Magistrate.
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.5085 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.5085 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.28485 & 28488 of 2024
A.Govinthan
.. Petitioner
Vs.
S.Gayathri
.. Respondent
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records in pursuant to the complaint in D.V.C.No.49 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, at Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District thereby quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sathish Kumar
O R D E R
This civil revision petition challenges the presentation of D.V.C.No.49 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
1/4
C.R.P.(PD).No.5085 of 2024
2.The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The petitioner
married the respondent on 16.09.2013 and from the wedlock, two children were born. Out of two children, one child passed away. The other child is said to be in the custody of the civil revision petitioner. The petitioner pleads that the proceeding is an harassment and a counter blast to his petition for divorce filed on the ground of cruelty in F.C.O.P.No.112 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court at Vellore. Hence, he seeks for quashing of the DVC proceedings.
3.A Full Bench of this Court in Arul Daniel and others Vs. Suganya,
(2022) 6 CTC 833 , held, if the petitioner so desires, it is open to him to file a petition to strike off petition before the Judicial Magistrate.
4.In the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court, I am not inclined to entertain this revision, since, domestic relationship between the parties is admitted.
2/4
C.R.P.(PD).No.5085 of 2024
5.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is open to
the petitioner to move an application to strike off before the learned Judicial Magistrate. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
No costs.
18.12.2024
krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District.
3/4
C.R.P.(PD).No.5085 of 2024
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk
C.R.P.(PD).No.5085 of 2024
18.12.2024
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petitioner's DVC proceedings, filed as alleged counter blast to his divorce petition, could be quashed under Article 227.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arul Daniel and others Vs. SuganyaRelied on¶3
(2022) 6 CTC 833
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A.Govinthan
S.Gayathri
V.Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
