SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Natarajan vs R.Nevedha on 25 March, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.03.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.O.P.No.838 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.Nos.622 and 623 of 2017

1.Natarajan
2.Vasanthakumari
3.Pradi
4.Leelavathi
5.Ramani … Petitioners
Vs.

R.Nevedha … Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
call for the records pertaining D.V.O.P.No.42 of 2016 pending on the file of the
Additional Mahila/Judicial Magistrate Court at Salem and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For Respondent : Mr.P.Tamilavel

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.42 of

2016, on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Salem.

2.The 1st petitioner is the father-in-law and the 2nd respondent is the

mother-in-law, 3rd respondent is the sister-in-law of the respondent and 4 and 5 are

the sister of the 1st and 2nd petitioners respectively. The marriage between

A1/Prasath Rajan and the respondent Viz.,R.Nivedha was solemnized on

09.02.2014. Though sufficient jewels, sridhana articles and dowry were given,

http://www.judis.nic.in
2

there was a dowry demand and also torture by the petitioners to the respondent

and she was forced to leave the matrimonial home on 20.09.2014. Hence, she

made a compliant under Section 12 r/w Sections 18, 20 and 22 of protection of

women from Domestic Violence Act before the Additional Mahila Court, Salem, in

D.V.O.P.No.42 of 2016.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the marriage

between the petitioner/A1 and the respondent, the respondent herself disclosed

that she was not interested in get marriage with him and she had someone else in

her mind and was not interested to continue to live with him. Hence, she herself

went to her parental home and failed to return back. Therefore, the husband of

the respondent had filed a divorce Petition in HMOP.No.113 of 2015 before the

Family Court, Salem, which is pending. As a counter blast to that case, the

respondent has filed the present Domestic Violence petition.

4.It is seen that H.M.O.P.No.113 of 1015 filed by the husband/A1 and

D.V.O.P.No.42 of 2016 filed by the wife/respondent are pending for trial. At this

stage, the petitioners, who are in-laws of the respondent prays to quash the

proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.42 of 2016.

5.Heard both sides.

http://www.judis.nic.in
3

6.It is seen that the relief sought for by the respondent in the domestic

violence case can be made and claimed as against her husband, who is already a

party in that case. The petitioners herein are only the in-laws of the respondent. As

such, the protection order sought for by the respondent herein in the domestic

violence case against these petitioners 1 to 5, based on the allegations, cannot be

maintained, in view of the fact that the entire allegation is as against the

husband/A1. While that being so, there cannot be any act of any domestic violence

as defined under Domestic Violence Act against these petitioners. In the absence of

the same, the proceedings as against the petitioners cannot be maintained and

consequently, these petitioners need not undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal

trial.

7.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings in

D.V.A.No.42 of 2016, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Additional Mahila

Court, Salem, insofar as these petitioners are concerned on condition that, they

shall ensure that A1/husband of the respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand only) per month on or before 5 th of every English Calendar

month to the credit of D.V.A.No.42 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Salem, as ad-interim maintenance, without

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.,

http://www.judis.nic.in
4

rm

prejudice to both the parties, failing which this order shall stand automatically

cancelled. On such deposit being made, the respondent is entitled to withdraw the

same.

8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. However,

considering the Domestic Violence Complaint is of the year 2017, the trial Court is

directed to complete the trial proceedings within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petitions are closed.

25.03.2019

Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rm

To

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court,Salem.

Crl.O.P.No.838 of 2017
and Crl.M.P.Nos.622 and 623 of 2017

http://www.judis.nic.in

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
MyNation Times Magzine


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