This judgment dismisses a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash Domestic Violence proceedings. The court held that further proceedings cannot be interdicted merely because of a claimed settlement, requiring parties to appear and plead.
Maintenance claims; quashing of proceedings in DVC No.14 of 2011
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.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1614 of 2012
Date:15th February, 2012
Between:
J.Kanaka Durga Prasad S/o.J.Sriramulu & Ors.
..... Petitioners
AND
Smt.Nuthalapati Mary Puspalatha @ Jayampu Mary Puspalatha D/o.N.Prasada Rao & Anr.
.....Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1614 of 2012
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the respondents in D.V.C.No.14 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, to quash the proceedings therein.
2. 1st respondent-Smt.Nuthalapati Mary Puspalatha @ Jayampu Mary Puspalatha is the wife of the 1st petitioner. She filed DVC No.14 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, claiming maintenance and certain other reliefs against the petitioners herein. Hence, this Criminal Petition by the respondents in DVC No.14 of 2011 to quash the proceedings therein.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is a settlement between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent and in pursuance of the said settlement certain amounts have been paid to her and therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the petitioners to pay any further amounts towards maintenance. Learned counsel refers the Photostat copies of the bankers cheque, dated 22.11.2008, and term deposit receipt, dated 25.03.2009, which find place at pager Nos.40 and 41 of the material papers.
5. The petitioners have to necessarily appear before the learned Magistrate in DVC No.14 of 2011 and place on record their pleadings and thereupon, invite the findings thereon. The further proceedings in DVC No.14 of 2011 cannot be interdicted by invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
Date:15th February, 2012. cs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1614 of 2012
Date:15th February, 2012
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be used to quash DVC proceedings when a written settlement and payment have been made.
Whether the petitioners have an obligation to pay further maintenance amounts despite the alleged settlement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
J.Kanaka Durga Prasad S/o.J.Sriramulu & Ors.
Smt.Nuthalapati Mary Puspalatha @ Jayampu Mary Puspalatha D/o.N.Prasada Rao & Anr.
B Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
