Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

Sathish Raja vs Santhini on 6 November, 2014

Author: S.Vaidyanathan

Bench: S.Vaidyanathan

       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated: 6.11.2014

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE  S.VAIDYANATHAN

Criminal Original Petition (MD) No.19160 of 2014

Sathish Raja			...		Petitioner

Vs

1.  Santhini

2.  Kamala

3.  Rajappa

4.  Jeyamala			...		Respondents

	Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the
records in Cr.M.P.No.2228 of 2013 dated 11/6/2014 and the order passed by the
learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Usilampatti and set
aside the same.

!For petitioner 		...	Mr.D.Selvanayagam

:ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the order in Cr.M.P.No.2228 of 2013 dated 11/6/2014 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Usilampatti.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the first respondent are the husband and wife and due to some misunderstanding they were separated. The first respondent/wife filed Cr.M.P.No.2228 of 2013 for maintenance before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti. The Magistrate ordered the petition granting a sum of Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance. The said order is being challenged before this Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

4. A perusal of the order would show that the order has been passed by the Judicial Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Section 29 of the said Act provides for appeal to the Court of Sessions is thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent. Therefore, I do not find any reason to entertain the criminal original petition. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, as there is an appellate remedy. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

5. At this stage, the petitioner prayed that the delay in approaching the Court of Sessions may be condoned. This Court is not inclined to give such direction. However, the period during which the criminal original petition is pending before this Court and till the copy of this order is made ready alone is excluded for the purpose of limitation.

To

1.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Usilampatti.