Madras High Court
Mrs.S.Kiruthika vs Mr.S.Priya Krishnan on 4 December, 2020
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.12.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 and 420 of 2020
Tr.C.M.P.No.110/2020
Mrs.S.Kiruthika .. Petitioner
Versus
Mr.S.Priya Krishnan .. Respondent
Tr.C.M.P.No.420/2020
Mr.S.Priya Krishnan .. Petitioner
Versus
Mrs.S.Kiruthika .. Respondent
Prayer in Tr.C.M.P.No.110/2020: Petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Civil
Procedure Code praying to withdraw the proceedings pending in H.M.O.P.No.902 of 2019
from the file of learned Sub-Court, Tambaram, and to transfer the same to the file of
learned Sub Court, Chidambaram.
Prayer in Tr.C.M.P.No.420/2020: Petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Civil
Procedure Code praying to withdraw the proceedings pending in H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2020
from the file of learned Sub-Court, Chidambaram, and to transfer the same to the file of
learned Sub Court, Tambaram.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/16
Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020
For Petitioner in Tr.CMP.No.110/20 & : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad
For Respondent in Tr.CMP.No.420/20 for M/s.Row & Reddy
For Petitioner in Tr.CMP.No.420/20
& For Respondent in Tr.CMP.No.110/20 : Mr.I.Abrar Md. Abdullah
COMMON ORDER
Heard the parties through Video Conferencing due to COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Mrs.S.Kiruthika, wife of Mr.S.Priya Krishnan, has filed Tr.C.M.P.No.110 of 2020 seeking to transfer H.M.O.P.No.902 of 2019 from the file of learned Sub-Court, Tambaram, to the file of learned Sub-Court, Chidambaram. The above said HMOP was filed by the respondent/husband seeking for dissolution of marriage.
3. Mr.S.Priyakrishnan, husbnad of Mrs.S.Kiruthika, has filed Tr.C.M.P.No.420 of 2020 seeking to transfer H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2020 from the file of learned Sub-Court, Chidambaram, to the file of learned Sub-Court, Tambaram. The above said HMOP was filed by the respondent/wife seeking for restitution of conjugal rights.
4. For better understanding, the wife will be referred to as the petitioner and the husband will be referred to as the respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020
5. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife argued that when the petitioner was doing her Master's Degree at Alabama University, Hunstville, U.S.A., the families of the bride and groom, obtaining proposal through Tamil Matrimony on 7.10.2017, exchanged their respective horoscopes. Thereafter, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 20.05.2018 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Srinivasa Thirumana Mandapam, Chidambaram. Before the marriage, the petitioner was having F1 visa and after the marriage, the visa has been converted to dependant visa due to marital status. Pursuant to the marriage, the petitioner accompanied the respondent to Michigan, USA, where the respondent was residing and thereafter, she left to Dayton where she was pursuing her studies at the University of Alabama. After sometime, the respondent/husband, under the guise of family function, sent her to India with a return ticket. But when the respondent also came to India, after celebrating the Sadhabhishekam of his grandfather, refused to take the petitioner back to USA and cancelled her visa and return ticket refusing to give consent for the same. He alone flew to USA, leaving behind the petitioner in the streets. When the petitioner's father questioned the same with the parents of the respondent at Chidambaram, they abused the petitioner and her family members over phone. Only thereafter, having no other alternative, a criminal complaint was lodged with the All Women Police Station, Chidambaram, which was registered for the offence under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 506(i) of IPC read with Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act against the respondent and his family members. This was also properly considered by the http://www.judis.nic.in 3/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020 police authorities and thereafter, they have also filed a final report on 05.02.2020, which was taken on file in C.C.No.7 of 2020 on 6.2.2020.
6. Since there was no response from the respondent for appearance before the police, a look out notice was issued on 18.02.2020 and this was also published in the External Affairs Ministry Website. Finally, when the respondent was refusing to respond to any of the summons issued, Inspector of Police AWPS, Chidambaram, gave a requisition dated 4.7.2020 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram seeking to impound the passport of the respondent, which was taken on file in CMP.No.542 of 2020 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 17.07.2020, directed the Regional Passport officer, Trichy, to impound his passport and pursuant to the said order, his passport was also impounded on 29.07.2020. Questioning the impounding of passport, the respondent/husband has filed W.P.(MD).No.8455 of 2020 before the Madurai Bench of this Court seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondent Regional Passport Officer from proceeding with an enquiry with respect to passport bearing No.J9108430 of the respondent/husband. The Madurai Bench of this Court, after hearing both parties, by order dated 31.07.2020, directed the respondent/husband to return to India within a period of four weeks after the lifting of lockdown and other restrictions and the resumption of flight service between USA and India, with a further direction that the lookout circular issued against the respondent/husband would not be enforced. http://www.judis.nic.in 4/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020
7. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the wife, without going into the merits of all these criminal cases and issuance of lookout notice and the impounding of passport, made a plea that the petitioner and the respondent are highly matured and educated, therefore, they will have to come forward to live together peacefully. The parents of the petitioner/wife are also willing to create conducive atmosphere to both of them to live together, hence, he requested this Court to sort out the issue amicably through mediation and if any such effort is taken and thereby the parties are untied, then they would be grateful to the Court and on this score, learned counsel renewed his request to consider his plea for reunion.
8. Alternatively, learned counsel also argued that the petitioner being a woman, it will be highly difficult for her to undertake a long journey outside Chidambaram i.e. either to Tambaram or to Pondicherry. Since the marriage has taken place at Chidambaram and that they lived together at Chidambaram before leaving to USA, the matter need not be transferred outside Chidambaram. Meeting out the allegation made against the petitioner and her family members, Mr.Prasad further argued that the averments made in the transfer petition filed by the respondent alleging that the petitioner's father and his brother using influence of the police department, obtained an order for impounding the passport, is totally false and without any substance. On this basis, he prayed for allowing the transfer petition filed by the petitioner.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020
9. Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah, learned counsel for the respondent/husband argued that having married the petitioner/wife as per Hindu Rites and Customs on 20.05.2018, the respondent/husband took her to USA. But, after reaching USA, when they were living together, even on small frivolous issues, her parents used to interfere between them, which had ultimately led to difference of opinion between the couple. In the meanwhile, both the petitioner and the respondent came to Chidambram to celebrate the respondent's grandfather's 80th year Sathabishegam function and after the function, the respondent advised the petitioner to stay in India for some more time. Keeping that in mind only, he cancelled her ticket and there was no motivation behind the cancellation of return ticket. But, this has been blown out of proportion by the petitioner's parents, as they have made a complaint against the respondent on 13.01.2020 and thereafter, using his influence, the petitioner's father, a journalist in Dinamani Tamil daily, filed an FIR against the respondent/husband and his old parents without any justification, on the file of All Women Police Station, Chidambram, in Cr.No.01/2020 for offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 506(i) IPC read with TNPHW Act, 2002. Misuse of his influence could be seen that within 23 days of registration of FIR, charge sheet has been filed on 05.02.2020. In addition thereto, for the reasons best known to them, putting more pressure to the police department through her relative working as Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor and joining hands with the her own paternal uncle, the petitioner's family members made the police department to take on the CMP No.542 of 2020 on 9.7.2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate–II, Chidambaram, seeking to impound the passport of the respondent, http://www.judis.nic.in 6/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020 without even waiting to see whether they are willing for reunion. Learned Judicial Magistrate-II also, without issuing notice to the respondent/husband when he has been impleaded as a party, curiously, unknown to law, has allowed the said petition on 17.07.2020 within a record time of 8 days, that shows that the petitioner's family members joining hands with Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor of the JM Court, Chidambaram and her paternal uncle mounted heavy pressure everywhere, as a result, erroneous order has been obtained from the learned Judicial Magistrate-II. Taking support of such an order, they have even gone to the extent of impounding the passport of the husband, due to which, the continuous stay and livelihood of the respondent are under threat in the USA, he pleaded.
10. Referring to Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967, Mr.Abrar argued that when sub-section (3) of Section 10 clearly mandates the passport authority to issue notice of show cause in writing, no notice whatsoever has been issued by the authority calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why his passport should not be impounded. Moreover, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chidambaram, has given only a letter dated 4.7.2020. But the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram, without entertaining a proper application, taking on file the said letter as CMP No.542 of 2020, without even issuing any notice against the respondent/husband, unlawfully and unfairly, joining hands with the police and the petitioner's family, succumbing to pressure, wrongly passed two orders dated 17.7.2020 on the same day allowing the CMP No.542 of 2020, that http://www.judis.nic.in 7/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020 too, within 8 days. Neither a copy of the CMP No.542 of 2020 has been furnished to the petitioner nor the letter dated 4.7.2020 has been sent to the respondent along with the summon calling upon them to come and appear before the Court. Learned counsel also argued that before taking the extreme step of impounding of passport, the passport authority ought to have issued a show cause notice, but, the said provision has not been followed in this case, as a result, the respondent/husband has been put to unthinkable problem. Seeing the multiple pressure and tactics adopted by the petitioner/wife on every authority, the respondent/husband has been advised to file the present transfer petition in Tr.C.M.P.No.420 of 2020 seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2020 filed by the wife from the file of learned Sub-Court, Chidambaram, to the file of learned Sub-Court, Tambaram.
11. On this basis, he contended that registering of FIR on 13.01.2020 on the same date of receiving the complaint against the husband, that has ultimately resulted in filing of the charge sheet on 05.02.2020, within 23 days, would definitely show the pressure mounted by the family members of the petitioner on the authorities. Even the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District has given a requisition letter on 19.2.2020 to the Assistant Director/SIC, BOI Headquarters, R.K.Puram, Sector-I, New Delhi for issuing look out circular. Again the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chidambaram giving a letter dated 4.7.2020 to the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram for impounding the passport of Mr.Priya Krishnan, shows that accepting the said letter, without any formal application, the learned Judicial Magistrate took on file the said letter http://www.judis.nic.in 8/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020 as CMP No.542 of 2020 and allowed the said application on 17.7.2020 impounding the passport of Mr.Priya Krishnan within 8 days from the date of taking on file the said letter dated 4.7.2020 on 9.7.2020. That shows the tremendous pressure mounted by the family members of the petitioner against the authorities to impound the passport on the one side and arrest the respondent and his family members and put them inside the jail for no reason. As mentioned above, the requisition for issuing the lookout notice on 19.02.2020 and the impounding of passport subsequent to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram, in CMP.No.542 of 2020, dated 17.07.2020, that too, without even issuing notice to him although he was a party to the proceeding, would explain that the petitioner's family members will travel to any extent to harass the respondent husband and his family members. Adding fuel to fire, the said Judicial Officer further has written a letter dated 17.07.2020 directing the Regional Passport Officer, Trichy, to revoke the passport of the respondent/husband. These facts and circumstances of the case would reveal the well calculated conspiracy hatched by the petitioner's family to cause irreparable injury to the respondent. Thus, in view of such circumstances, it is neither conducive nor advisable for the respondent husband to attend the matrimonial proceeding at Chidambaram and therefore, if the matter is transferred either to Tambaram or to Pondicherry, it will be convenient for both parties to conduct both the cases at one place.
12. I also find merits on the above said submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent/husband. Admittedly, when there was a dispute between the husband and http://www.judis.nic.in 9/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020 wife while living in USA, they came to India to attend the Sadhabhishekam of the respondent's grandfather at Chidambaram. Due to difference of opinion cropped up between the couple, a criminal complaint was filed before the All Women Police Station, Chidambaram on 13.1.2020 by the father of the petitioner. Peculiarly, on the very same day, First Information Report was registered for the offence under Sections 498(A), 294(b), 506(i) IPC read with Section 4 of the TNPHW Act against the respondent and his family members. Again, surprisingly, final report was filed on 5.2.2020 within a record time of 23 days. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chidambaram gave a requisition letter dated 4.7.2020 to the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram for impounding the passport of Mr.Priya Krishnan, the respondent herein. Without there being any formal application, the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram has taken on file the said letter as CMP No.542 of 2020 on 9.7.2020 and without even issuing any formal notice to the respondent or giving any reasonable opportunity, allowed the said CMP No.542 of 2020 by order dated 17.7.2020 within 8 days from the date of taking on file the said requisition on 9.7.2020. Besides, learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram, passed two orders on the same application i.e. CMP.No.542 of 2020 on the very same day. Such a procedure adopted by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram is not only unknown to law, but also clearly shows that the presiding officer has become the pressure point at the hands of the petitioner's family and the police department. A perusal of the docket order dated 17.7.2020 made by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram shows that a look out circular has already been issued by the Superintendent of Police, http://www.judis.nic.in 10/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020 Cuddalore District, therefore, the impounding of passport became necessary. As a matter of fact, when the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District gave a requisition letter to the Assistant Director/SIC, BOI Headquarters, Sector-I, R.K.Puram, New Delhi only on 19.2.2020, it is not known how the requisition letter given by the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District to the Assistant Director/SIC, BOI Headquarters, Sector-I, R.K.Puram, New Delhi can be presumed that a look out circular has been issued on 19.2.2020, when it is only a requisition. But there is no indication on what date the look out circular has been issued for the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram to say that the look out circular has been issued against the respondent. No record has also been produced to show that any look out circular has been issued by the Assistant Director/SIC, BOI Headquarters, Sector-I, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. Secondly, the rash and over speed with which the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram has proceeded in the matter evidently exemplifies his biased behaviour, for, when the letter dated 4.7.2020 given by the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chidambaram has been taken on record on 9.7.2020 as CMP No.542 of 2020, from 9.7.2020 till 17.7.2020 when the final order was passed against the respondent, no notice has been issued to the respondent. The order also does not say that any notice has been issued to the respondent, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram has rendered himself as a victim of pressure at the hands of the petitioner's family. This Court having the Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be a silent spectator to multiple irregularities committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020
13. Therefore, this Court also, by order dated 14.8.2020, directed the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram to send the relevant records to see on what basis the order dated 17.7.2020 has been passed in CMP No.542 of 2020 directing the Regional Passport Officer to impound the passport of the respondent. On receipt of the order, the learned Judicial Magistrate has also sent the relevant records in a sealed cover. A perusal of the same clearly shows that he has neither followed the law nor followed the principles of natural justice before passing an order directing the Regional Passport Officer, Trichy to impound the passport of the respondent. Secondly, it is not known why the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram, has sent a request letter dated 17.07.2020 asking the Regional Passport Officer, Trichy, to revoke the passport of Mr.Priya Krishnan at the earliest and report the same to the Court, when the order dated 17.7.2020 does not mention the Passport Officer to report to him. Thus, the aforesaid background of the case would reveal that there was an unwanted push behind in each and every proceedings. It is necessary to highlight various deviations adopted by the petitioner's family, police authorities and the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram. They are;
(i) Letter dated 04.07.2020 of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Chidambaram, has been treated as C.M.P.No.542 of 2020 on 09.07.2020 without any application accompanied with an affidavit for impounding of passport.
(ii) Moreover, within 8 days of taking it on record, the above said petition in C.M.P.No.542 of 2020 was allowed on 17.07.2020 without http://www.judis.nic.in 12/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020 following the principles of natural justice as no notice has been issued to the respondent/husband. Learned Judicial Magistrate-II has also passed two orders, namely, docket order and typed order, on the very same day i.e. 17.07.2020 on the very same CMP.No.542 of 2020.
(iii) Learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram, has written a letter to the Passport Authority to revoke the passport of the respondent on the very same day of passing of a judicial order i.e. on 17.07.2020, which is unknown to law and never heard of.
(iv) The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District, gave only a requisition letter to the Assistant Director/SIC, BOI Headquarters, Sector-I, R.K.Puram, New Delhi, on 19.02.2020 to issue lookout circular, whereas the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram, vide order 17.07.2020 passed in C.M.P.No.542 of 2020 has stated as if lookout notice has already been issued by the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.
(v) When the whole world is at lock-down during the month of July, 2020 even closing down the international flight services to India from other Countries, it is highly unjustified on the part of the Police Department and the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram, to give a finding of absconding status in the docket order against the respondent working in USA, without following the procedure contemplated under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
http://www.judis.nic.in 13/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020 Thus, for all these reasons stated above, the Registrar General, High Court, is directed to place a copy of this order and relevant files before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for His Lordship's kind perusal and for appropriate action, if necessary.
14. The aforesaid chain of unforeseen events would evidently prove the presence of pressure groups disturbing conducive ambiance in Chidambaram and such incidences are also good enough for transfer of the pending case at Chidambaram, therefore, I do not want to go into other arguments advanced by the parties. Accordingly, H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2020 filed by the wife pending on the file of learned Sub-Court, Chidambaram, and H.M.O.P.No.902 of 2019 filed by the husband pending on the file of learned Sub-Court, Tambaram, are withdrawn and consequently transferred to the file of learned Family Court, Pondicherry. On such transfer, learned Family Court, Pondicherry, shall dispose of both the cases together in the manner known to law as expeditiously as possible. Learned Family Court, Pondicherry, is further directed to initiate steps for reunion by giving reasonable opportunities to both parties before disposing of both the cases. With the above directions, both the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions stand disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The Registry is directed to return the original records received from the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Chidambaram, in a sealed cover under acknowledgment.
04.12.2020 Index : yes/no rkm Note to Office:
Issue order copy on 18.12.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 14/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020 To
1.Sub-Court, Tambaram.
2.Sub-Court, Chidambaram.
3.Family Court, Pondicherry.
4.Registrar General, High Court, Madras http://www.judis.nic.in 15/16 Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 & 420 of 2020 T.RAJA, J.
rkm Tr.C.M.P.Nos.110 and 420 of 2020 04.12.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 16/16