Madras High Court
Mary Thanka Sheela vs G.Ajitha on 15 December, 2017
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.12.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.834 of 2013
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
1.Mary Thanka Sheela
2.Augastheenal .. Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3
Vs.
G.Ajitha .. Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the application in
Crl.M.P.No.8986/2012 pending on the file of the learned Principal District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, in respect of the
petitioners/respondents 2 and 3.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.John Jayakumar
For Respondent : No appearance
:ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the application in Crl.M.P.No.8986 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, in respect of the petitioners/respondents 2 and 3.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the first accused and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 12.04.2007 as per the customary rights in Roman Catholics. Out of the wedlock they are blessed with one female child. Thereafter, the first accused and his family members harassed the defacto complainant by demanding additional dowry and they scolded her using filthy language and threatened her. Now, the defacto complainant is living in her parental home with her 3 years old child. The first accused did not give any financial assistance to her. Hence, she filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the learned Principal District Munisf cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel. Against the same, the petitioners filed this present petition.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners raised several grounds for quashing the case in Cr.M.P.No.8986 of 2012, he submitted that it would suffice, if a direction is issued to the trial Court to complete the trial within a time limit that may be stipulated by this Court and also to permit the petitioners to raise all the grounds raised in this petition before the trial Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the second petitioner is 79 years, she is suffering from age old illness and hence, prays for dispense with the appearance before the trial Court.
5. In the light of the above said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, directs the learned Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, to complete the trial in Cr.M.P.No.8986 of 2012, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the personal appearance of the second petitioner is dispensed with before the trial Court, unless the learned Magistrate feels that her presence is required for the disposal of the case.
6. With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
To The Principal District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel.
.