Madras High Court
Muthusamy vs Rajagenkeshkumar on 6 June, 2023
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
C.R.P.(MD)No.558 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.558 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.2623 of 2023
1.Muthusamy
2.Eswari
3.Pooranam @ Sathiya
4.Vijalakshmi
5.Kalaiselvi .. Petitioners
Versus
1.Rajagenkeshkumar
2.Chitradevi .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off
the petitioners' names relating to the complaint in D.V.O.P.No.17 of 2022, on the file
of the Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Ramanathapuram, quash the
same and consequently, allow the Civil Revision Petition in respect of the petitioners
herein.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For Respondents : No Appearance
ORDER
The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law, and three sister-in-laws of the second respondent herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6 C.R.P.(MD)No.558 of 2023
2.Despite service of notice on the respondents in this Civil Revision Petition and their names being printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
3.This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the names of the petitioners in D.V.O.P.No.17 of 2022, pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court [Magistrate Level], Ramanathapuram, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
4.The petitioners are the residents of Ramanathapuram. The respondents are the husband and wife. D.V.O.P.No.17 of 2022 has been filed by the second respondent against the first respondent and the petitioners herein. The petitioners herein are the in-laws of the second respondent and father, mother and sisters of the first respondent.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that soon after the marriage, the second respondent was transferred to Mumbai and was working there and she chose not to live in Tamil Nadu. He further submits that the petitioners and the respondents are not living together in a shared household. Therefore, the ingredients of domestic violence are wholly absent in this case and vague allegations are made in the complaint by the second respondent against the petitioners. He also submits that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 C.R.P.(MD)No.558 of 2023 the complaint does not disclose any specific instance of domestic violence against the petitioners. In the absence of any concrete proof relating to domestic violence, the complaint is in fact designed only to harass the petitioners. If the complaint is allowed to be proceeded, it would obviously result in abuse of process of law.
6.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
7.The specific allegations of the second respondent against the petitioners in the above D.V.O.P. are as follows:-
''7.Nkw;gb kDjhuiu 1k; vjpHkDjhH mofpy;iy vd;Wk;> vdf;Nfw;w ngz; ,y;iynad;Wk;> vdf;F NghJkhd tujl;riz nfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;W nrhy;yp Gwf;fzpj;J te;jhH. Nkw;gb kDjhhpd; ngw;NwhHfs; me;j ngz;iz kwe;J vdJ kfis tho itAq;fs; vd;W 1k; vjpHkDjhhplKk;> mtuJ FLk;gj;jhHfsplk; $wpajw;F> cq;fs; ngz;iz tho itf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;why; $Ljyhf &.
30>00>000-,yl;rk; nfhLq;fs; vd;W cwtpdHfsplk; nrhy;yp mDg;gpdhHfs;. ehd; Nfl;l njhifia nfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;why; tho itf;f khl;Nld; vd nfhLikg;gLj;jp te;jhH. Nkw;gb kDjhH 1k; vjpHkDjhhpd; tPl;bw;F nrd;W vd;id tho itAq;fs; vd;Wk;> 2> 3 vjpHkDjhHfsplk; cq;fs; gps;isia jpUe;jp tho nrhy;Yq;fs; vd;W $wpaNghJ Nkw;gb 2 Kjy; 6 vjpHkDjhHfs; ,e;j cyfj;jpy;
ahHjhd; tg;ghl;b itf;ftpy;iy. mijnay;yhk; fz;L
fhzhky; ,Ue;J nfhs; vd mwpTiu $wpdhHfs;. kDjhH
vd;d ,g;gb NgRfpwPHfs; ve;j ngz; jd;Dila tho;f;ifia
tpl;LnfhLg;gh> ePq;fNs cq;fs; kfDf;F Mjuthf NgRfpwPHfs; vd;W https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 C.R.P.(MD)No.558 of 2023 Nfl;ljw;F 1k; vjpHkDjhuH kDjhiu mbj;Jk;> kw;w vjpHkDjhHfs; 1k; vjpHkDjhUld; NrHe;J nfhz;L kDjhuiu mrpq;fkhf Ngrp mbj;J> tPl;iltpl;L ntspNaw;wptpl;ldH.''
8.The first respondent has also filed H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2022 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Sub Court, Muthukulathur and the same is pending for further adjudication.
9.Dealing with an identical situation, this Court in Santineer Vincent Rajkumar and another vs. R.Rejitha reported in 2017 (5) CTC 515, has quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioners therein in S.T.C.No.10791 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur, after following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2010 (7) SCC 667, wherein at Paragraph 35, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as under:-
''35.The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.'' https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 C.R.P.(MD)No.558 of 2023
10.The facts of the aforesaid case are quite similar to the facts of the present case. It is clear that the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been used as a tool to oppress the in-laws of the second respondent. Consequently, the prayer is made out in this Civil Revision Petition for striking out the names of the petitioners from D.V.O.P.No.17 of 2022, on the file of the Additional Mahila Court [Magistrate Level], Ramanathapuram.
11.In view of the above, the names of the petitioners in D.V.O.P.No.17 of 2022, on the file of the Additional Mahila Court [Magistrate Level], Ramanathapuram, is struck down. This Civil Revision Petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No 06.06.2023
Internet : Yes/No
smn2
To
The Judge,
Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level),
Ramanathapuram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/6
C.R.P.(MD)No.558 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)No.558 of 2023
06.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/6