SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Raja Jayapandian vs Mrs.Thangabhanumathi on 12 April, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.04.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.7095 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013

Raja Jayapandian … Petitioner/2nd Respondent

Vs.

Mrs.Thangabhanumathi … Respondent/Petitioner

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and to quash all

further proceedings in M.C.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the XXIII

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan

For Respondent : Mr.K.Goviganesan

*****

ORDER

Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records and to

quash all further proceedings in M.C.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the

XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

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

2.The petitioner is the second respondent in M.C.No.15 of

2012 pending on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Saidapet, Chennai.

3.The respondent is the daughter-in-law and the petitioner

therein.

4.The respondent had filed a case under Domestic Violence

Act against the petitioner and his son seeking Protection order

under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act.

5.The Contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is

residing at Madurai and his son Muthu Kumar was married to the

respondent were residing separately at Nesapakkam, Chennai from

the date of their marriage. Hence, there is no occasion for the

petitioner to indulge in domestic violence.

6.The gist of the complaint is that the marriage between the

petitioner’s son viz., Muthu Kumar and the respondent had taken

place on 15.02.2009 at Madurai. During the marriage, the parents

of the respondent had given 150 sovereigns of gold jewels and
http://www.judis.nic.in
3

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) worth house hold articles as

sridhana. The petitioner’s son was working in Aircel as an Officer.

From ten days after the marriage, the petitioner’s son and the

respondent were living separately at Chennai. Out of their marriage

a girl baby was born on 11.12.2009. Whenever the petitioner used

to visit them he used to speak in double language filthy words. The

respondent had complained about the same to her mother-in-law

and to her husband. Both of them had not cared about it. The

petitioner’s son had given a false complaint that the respondent had

attempted suicide. During the enquiry on 21.02.2011 the petitioner

was warned by the Sub Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station,

Madurai City and not to enter the matrimonial house.

7.In the meanwhile, the respondent became pregnant against

her wish and aborted the same. The respondent’s husband had

demanded Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakh only) for the purchase

of a house. On 20.08.2011, the respondent’s father died. Three

months thereafter the petitioner’s son had demanded share in the

family property. Further they had also given a false complaint, as

though, the respondent was having illegal relationship with one

Kannan. An enquiry was conducted on 05.12.2011, they were

called and warned for making such allegation. For the marriage of
http://www.judis.nic.in
4

the petitioner’s second son Rs.5,00,000/- of dowry was demanded

from the respondent and the respondent had given a complaint

before the All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar. Since the

respondent’s father recently passed away and the respondent was

not allowed into the matrimonial house, she gave a complaint

before the All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar. The petitioner’s

son had also filed a divorce petition before the III Additional Family

Court, Madurai.

8.The petitioner’s son had deserted the respondent and the

respondent was living alone with her infant seeking Residential

order, Protection order and Return of her sridhana articles. She had

preferred a complaint before the Protection Officer. The Protection

Officer had forwarded a Domestic Incident Report to the concerned

Court. Thereafter, the concerned Court, took cognizance of the

case and sent summons to the petitioner and his son, against which

the present quash petition is filed.

9.The contention of the petitioner is that even according to

the respondent ten days after the marriage (15.02.2009), the

respondent was living separately at Chennai and the petitioner was

the residing at Madurai. They never lived in the shared house hold.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5

The respondent was not a normal person and she suffered mental

disorder and attempted suicide and she was even given treatment

as inpatient on 26.05.2011. The respondent attempted to commit

suicide by taking over dose of pills which was prescribed for her

mental disorder, due to which she was rushed to Vijaya Hospital for

giving treatment. During the treatment, her pregnancy was

terminated as a part of the medical treatment and the petitioner

was nothing to do with the same.

10.Further the respondent had illegal intimacy with one

Kannan, who is the college mate of the respondent and the

relationship of the said Kannan and the respondent continued

against the wish of the petitioner and his family members.

Thereafter a police complaint was filed before the Villakuthoon

Police Station, Madurai and the petitioner’s son had also filed

H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2012 before the III Additional Judge, Madurai.

The respondent was in the habit of given false complaint against the

petitioner and his family members and a case in Crime No.14 of

2012 came to be registered under Section 498(A), 406, 312, 294(b)

IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act.

Thereafter a charge memo came to be filed in C.C.No.1164 of 2013

before the XXVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. After the full-
http://www.judis.nic.in
6

fledged trial the Metropolitan Magistrate had rendered a Judgment

of acquittal on 05.08.2018.

11.The respondent had also filed H.M.O.P.No.175 of 2017

seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights. The III Additional Judge,

Madurai by a common Judgment dated 12.09.2017 had dismissed

the H.M.O.P.No.175 of 2017 filed by the respondent, wherein the

relationship between the respondent and the said Kannan have

been elaborately discussed. Further the Lower Court had granted

divorce to the petitioner’s son by set aside the marriage dated

15.02.2009. Both the Criminal Court as well as the Family Court

had elaborately analysed the evidences and had given a clear and

categorical finding that the petitioner had never lived together in a

shared house hold and the petitioner residing at Madurai and the

respondent at Chennai have been confirmed. Further the relief

sought by the respondent is only against the said Muthu Kumar and

hence sought the above case against him to be quashed.

12.The respondent had opposed the quash petition stating

that the respondent has put to unbearable suffering. Whenever the

petitioner used to visit his son Muthu Kumar he used to utter illicit

comments. His intention and approach towards the respondent was
http://www.judis.nic.in
7

with bad intention and though the respondent had complained about

the same to her mother-in-law and to her husband they had ignored

the same and had not protected her. The demand for dowry was

there right from the marriage and the demand was continuous. The

abortion of the second pregnancy was forcibly done against her

wish. The petitioner’s son had deserted the matrimonial home

leaving the respondent and her infant baby and also further failed to

make the EMI payment for the house in which they were residing

and she was to be forcibly evicted from the house. No family

maintenance was paid and the respondent was not taken care by

her husband and hence the respondent had filed a complaint before

the Protection Officer and thereafter, due enquiry the above case

came to be filed.

12.Considering the rival submission and the materials, it is

found that the respondent was not in the normal mental state and

she was taking medical treatment for the same. On one occasion

she had consumed over dosage of medicines prescribed for her

mental health. Thereafter she was rushed to the Vijaya Hospital

and during treatment her pregnancy was terminated, for which the

petitioner could not be found faulted.

http://www.judis.nic.in
8

13.Further it is an admitted case of the respondent that ten

days after their marriage, the respondent and her husband Muthu

Kumar were living separately at Chennai. The petitioner was living

in Madurai with his family and they did not share the common house

hold. With regard to the other allegations, the XXIII Metropolitan

Magistrate had rendered a Judgment dated 05.10.2018 in

C.C.No.1164 of 2013 and the III Additional Judge, Madurai by a

common Judgment in H.M.O.P.No.175 of 2017 and H.M.O.P.No.22

of 2012 dated 12.09.2017, elaborately analysed the evidences and

acquitted the petitioner and his family members for the dowry

demand, harassment, cruelty and other offences. The Family Court

Madurai found the contention of the respondent are not sustainable.

The petitioner’s son was granted divorce. The pith and substance of

the cases are same.

14.In view of the same the proceedings as against the

petitioner in M.C.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan

Magistrate, Saidapet is hereby quashed.

http://www.judis.nic.in
9

15.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

12.04.2019

Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No

ah

To

1.The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet.

2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

http://www.judis.nic.in
10

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

ah

Crl.O.P.No.7095 of 2013

12.04.2019

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