BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 02.02.2018
Delivered on : 27.03.2018
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13230 of 2017
CRL.M.P(MD).Nos.8953 8954 of 2017
3.Sivagami @ Kuttiammal
7.Selvaraj … Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 7
Vimala … Respondent/ Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed underneath Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for a whole annals regarding to a petition filed underneath a Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in D.V.O.P.No.2 of 2017 on a record of a District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur and stifle a same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For Respondent : Mr.A.Govindaraj
This petition has been filed to stifle a record in D.V.O.P.No.2 of 2017 on a record of a District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.
2.The schooled warn for a petitioners has submitted that a initial postulant is a father of a respondent herein, second postulant is a mom and other petitioners are sister and brothers of a initial petitioner. He serve submitted that a matrimony between a initial postulant and a respondent was solemnized on 12.09.2010 and thereafter, they led a marital life usually during Ekattuthangal, Chennai, since a initial postulant was operative during Chennai. He serve submitted that during no indicate of time a respondent lived with a petitioners 2 to 7 in a common domicile and therefore, a supplies of Domestic Violence Act will not attract.
3.The schooled warn for a respondent has submitted that all a petitioners go to a same family and they are vital as a corner family. He serve submitted that a petitioners 1 to 7 have conspired and tormented a respondent by perfectionist dowry and also driven out a respondent from a matrimonial home and hence, a supplies of Domestic Violence Act would attract opposite all a petitioners herein.
4.The respondent herein has filed an focus underneath Section 12 of a Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred as ‘the Act’), seeking certain reliefs underneath a aforesaid Act. The condition fashion for filing focus underneath a Act is that a applicant/aggrieved chairman should have lived or vital in a domestic attribute with a respondent. As per Section 2(f) of a Act, domestic attribute means ?a attribute between dual persons, who live or have, during any indicate of time, lived together in a common household, when they are associated by consanguinity, marriage, or by a attribute in a inlet of marriage, adoption or are family members vital together as a corner family;?
5.In this case, a examination of a focus filed by a respondent underneath Section 12 of a DV Act shows that a respondent herein has certified that 10 days after a matrimony a initial postulant herein and herself have shifted their chateau to Ekattuthangal, Chennai since a initial postulant herein was operative during Chennai. So, it is transparent that a respondent herein has not lived together or vital with a petitioners 2 to 7 in a domestic attribute in a common household. Therefore, a move opposite a petitioners 2 to 7 in D.V.O.P.No.2 of 2017 on a record of a District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, has to be quashed. In so distant as a initial postulant is concerned, who is being a father he has not denied a averments that he lived along with a respondent during Ekattuthangal, Chennai, and as such, prima facie, a supplies of a Act would attract opposite him and therefore, a record opposite him can't be quashed.
6.In a result, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed. In sofar as a petitioners 2 to 7 are concerned, a record in D.V.O.P.No.2 of 2017 on a record of a District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, is quashed. In sofar as a initial postulant is concerned, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
To The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Peraiyur.