SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Lakshmi Narayanan vs Kamatchi on 16 March, 2020

CRL.O.P.No.28924 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.03.2020

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRL. O.P. No. 28924 of 2018
and
CRL.M.P.No.16897 of 2018

Lakshmi Narayanan … Petitioner
Versus

Kamatchi …Respondent

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for
the records relating to the proceedings in D.V.No.21 of 2018 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran
For Respondent : No Appearance

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings

in D.V.C. No.21 of 2018, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Ambattur. There are totally three respondents in the domestic violence case,

in which the petitioner is arrayed as first respondent.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint
http://www.judis.nic.in

1/5
CRL.O.P.No.28924 of 2018

filed under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is nothing but an abuse of

process of law, per se vexatious, frivolous and not maintainable as against the

petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was

solemnised on 07.09.2007, thereafter, there was a strained relationship

between them and the respondent left the matrimonial home. Therefore, the

petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in F.C.O.P. No.

3929 of 2011 and a petition for divorce in F.C.O.P.No.3374 of 2009. The

petitioner’s divorce petition was dismissed on 09.03.2013 and the restitution

of conjugal rights petition was decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

preferred an appeal in CMA. No. 1330 of 2013 before this Court and the

same was also dismissed. Again, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition

(Civil) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Diary No.23510 of 2018

and the same is pending.

3.While so, the respondent filed a maintenance case in M.C. No. 261 of

2013 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in which, she prayed for direction to the

petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.1,50,000/- to her and Rs.50,000/- for her

minor son. By order dated 19.01.2018, the V-Additional Family Court,

Chennai awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- as maintenance to the respondent and

a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the minor son. The order of maintenance was also
http://www.judis.nic.in

2/5
CRL.O.P.No.28924 of 2018

challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Crl.RC. No. 567 of 2018 and

the same is pending. So far the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.27,64,250/- to the

respondent as maintenance and also continuously paying the monthly

maintenance for a period of 11 years from the date on which the relationship

between them got strained. While so, the domestic violence complaint has

been filed as against the petitioner and two others, claiming maintenance.

5.The only point for consideration is limitation. In this regard, it is

relevant to rely upon the judgment in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs.

State of Punjab Anr., reported in 2012 Crl.L.J 309. Sections 28 and 32 of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 r/w Rule 15(6) of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006, makes the

provisions of Criminal Procedure Code applicable. Therefore, the respondent

ought to have filed the complaint within a period of one year from the date of

the incident.

6.In the case on hand, the respondent left the matrimonial home in the

year 2008 itself, thereafter, there are so many proceedings pending against

the petitioner and the respondent herein, in respect to their family disputes.

The petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent
http://www.judis.nic.in

3/5
CRL.O.P.No.28924 of 2018

herein and a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the minor son as maintenance in

MC.No.261 of 2013 and it is under challenge before this Court in

Crl.R.C.No.567 of 2018 and the petitioner herein has been continuously

paying the maintenance to the respondent.

7.Therefore, on the ground of limitation, the entire complaint is

nothing but a clear abuse of process of Court and it cannot be sustained as

against the petitioner.

8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the

proceedings in D.V.No.21 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Ambattur are quashed. Consequently, the connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

16.03.2020
(2/2)
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/non-speaking order

klt

To

The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.
http://www.judis.nic.in

4/5
CRL.O.P.No.28924 of 2018

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.,

klt

CRL.O.P.No.28924 of 2018
and
CRL.M.P.No.16897 of 2018

16.03.2020
(2/2)

http://www.judis.nic.in

5/5

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 © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation