SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

N.Sudhakar vs R.Sumitha on 2 November, 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.11.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.14759 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9825 and 9826 of 2017

1.N.Sudhakar
2.Narayanasamy
3.N.Suseela : Petitioners / Respondents

-Vs-

1.R.Sumitha
2.Baby S.Sagarika
Aged about 3 years and 10 months
rep. by her mother and natural
Guardian R.Sumitha : Respondents / Petitioners

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code, praying to call for the records pertaining to the case in
D.V.C.No.14 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court
No.II, Virudhunagar District and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.D.Sasikumar

For Respondents :

:ORDER

This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No.14 of 2017
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Virudhunagar.

2.The respondents 1 and 2 has filed D.V.C.No.14 of 2017 under Section
12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act for the relief provided
under Sections 12, 17, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act. The first petitioner in
this petition is the husband of the first respondent and the father of second
respondent. The second petitioner is the father-in-law of the first
respondent and the third petitioner is the mother-in-law of the first
respondent.

3.The marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent
was solemnized on 16.05.2012 and this fact is not in dispute. It is stated
by the petitioners that due to difference of opinion between the couple, the
first respondent deserted the first petitioner and started residing with her
parents. The second respondent was born on 24.10.2013 when the first
respondent was residing with her parents.

4.It is stated by the petitioners that in stead of sorting out the
matrimonial dispute between the first petitioner and the first respondent,
the first respondent lodged a criminal complaint for the alleged offences
under Sections 498A and 406 I.P.C. which was registered in Crime No.41 of
2015 on the file of All Women Police Station, Samayanallur, Madurai District.
It is further stated that the petitioners 2 and 3 in this petition obtained
anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4929 of 2015 by depositing a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- in the account of first respondent and by returning the
Sridhana properties including the gold jewels. It is further stated that the
first petitioner has filed a petition for divorce before the Sub Court,
Aruppukottai and it is pending in H.M.O.P.No.124 of 2015. The petition filed
by the first respondent to transfer the proceedings is pending in
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.96 of 2016 before this Court. Crl.O.P.(MD) No.12467 of 2015
has been filed by the petitioners 2 and 3 for quashing the criminal
complaint. Similarly, the petition filed by the first respondent for
maintenance is pending in M.C.No.8 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Vadipatti. During the pendency of all the proceedings above referred
to, it is stated by the petitioners that the respondents have filed
D.V.C.No.14 of 2017 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the proceedings in D.V.C.No.14 of 2017 is nothing but clear
abuse of process of law and that if the petition is proceeded, it will result
in miscarriage of justice. It is further submitted that the petition filed
by the respondent is not in accordance with law and that there is no prima
facie case to show that the respondents were subjected to domestic violence.
Describing the petition in D.V.C.No.14 of 2017 as a vexatious litigation, it
is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition
itself is not in the prescribed format and that the petitioner has not filed
Form-I namely domestic incident report. Since the first respondent deserted
the first petitioner even in the year 2013, the petition filed after four
years from the date of separation alleging harassment or domestic violence is
unsustainable and the petition in D.V.C.No.14 of 2017 is liable to be
quashed.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that all the
jewels and Sridhana properties were returned to the first respondent in the
presence of the Police Inspector concerned and it was only based on the
instructions given by the Inspector of Police regarding the return of jewels
and Sridhana properties, the petitioners 2 and 3 were given anticipatory
bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners also produced before this
Court the list of articles which were handed over to the first respondent.
It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is
the first petitioner who was subjected to torture and mental agony and that
the first respondent has filed the petition only to harass the petitioners
further. It is also submitted that the petition is liable to be quashed on
the limitation point by relying upon Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners produced a copy of
the order that was passed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4929 of 2015 wherein this Court
was pleased to grant interim anticipatory bail on condition that the
petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

7.In the petition filed by the respondents in D.V.C.No.14 of 2017
under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the
reliefs prayed for by the respondents are for maintenance of respondents, for
providing shelter to the respondents at Door No.586, Raj Nagar, Kariyapatti,
Virudhunagar District and for restraining the petitioners herein from using
or diluting the part of Sridhana or gold jewels that were under the custody
of the petitioners herein and for return of the jewels and Sridhana articles
given by the parents of the first respondent at the time of marriage. The
averments found in the petition clearly discloses the cause of action for
filing this petition. The petitioner has not claimed any compensation for
any domestic violence. In stead, the claim of the respondents is for
maintenance, for providing shelter to the respondents and for returning
jewels and Sridhana articles. Having regard to the specific relief that were
provided under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, this Court does not find any merits in the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners. The fact that the first petitioner and the
first respondent were living together till the second respondent was born to
the first petitioner and the first respondent is not in dispute. The
marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent is still
subsisting and the domestic relationship continues. In this background, the
grounds raised by the petitioner and the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioners do not inspire this Court to grant any relief to
the petitioners. As a result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

8.It is to be noted that specific allegations are made in the petition
as against the petitioners complaining domestic violence. It is specifically
stated that the harassment to the wife was at the instigation of the
respondents 2 and 3 and that therefore, this Court is not able to accept the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings in
D.V.C.No.14 of 2017 can be dismissed as against the petitioners 2 and 3
herein. It is open to the petitioners 2 and 3 to raise all their objections
as the petition is also for claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the
petitioners. However, no specific instance of domestic violence is alleged
as against the petitioners 2 and 3 in this case. Hence, appearance of the
petitioners 2 and 3 is dispensed with unless and until their presence is
specifically required by an order of the Court. Consequently, the connected
criminal miscellaneous petitions are closed.

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,
Virudhunagar District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.

.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh