Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3301
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P.DEVADASS
Meenal @ Periyanayagi
Versus
S.Ravishankar & Another
M.P.No.1 of 2012 in CRL.O.P.No.11043 of 2012
Decided on : 27-07-2012
For the Petitioner:Ms.D.Arokia Mary Sophia, Advocate.
For the Repondents:K.Prabakar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
In a matrimonial dispute, the return of articles should be sought through provisions in the Matrimonial Law, not in a petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Matrimonial Dispute - The court dismissed the petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the return of articles in a matrimonial dispute should be sought through provisions in the Matrimonial Law, not in a petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to her husband, alleging that he was not returning her shridhana articles. The couple was already involved in a pending matrimonial dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the return of articles in a matrimonial dispute should be sought through provisions in the Matrimonial Law, not in a petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's request for cancellation of anticipatory bail due to her husband's failure to return her articles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the return of articles in a matrimonial dispute should be sought through provisions in the Matrimonial Law, and not in a petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail. It also highlighted that bail or anticipatory bail cannot be cancelled without sufficient grounds, and interference with investigation or criminal activities may be considered for cancellation.
Final Decision: The Miscellaneous Petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail was dismissed by the court.
2. Petitioner joined in wedlock with Ravi Shankar/accused. They had no issues, but have issues. Already, they are fighting in the Family Court, Chennai, in H.M.O.P.No.1866 of 2012, which has been filed by Ravi Shankar for their reunion.
3. On 09.05.2012, in Crl.O.P.No.11043 of 2012, this court had granted him anticipatory bail. Now, the petitioner wants cancellation of it. Her main grievance is that her husband having obtained anticipatory bail is not returning her shridhana articles.
4. Granting of bail, anticipatory bail, as the case may be and cancellation of them are based on different principles. Unless sufficient grounds are established, Courts will not cancel the bail orders.
5. So far as cancellation of bail, anticipatory bail is concerned, there are certain settled principles. If the accused, who has been given liberty by passing the bail order, whether regular bail or anticipatory bail, interferes with investigation, overawe the witnesses, indulges in similar criminal activities there may be a case for cancelling the bail order. A bail or anticipatory bail is in the nature of liberty order. That cannot be lightly interfered with. It cannot be cancelled by the mere asking.
6. A close reading of the petition shows that the petitioner wants return of her articles from her husband. Already H.M.O.P.No.1866 of 2012 is pending between them. There is ample provision in the Matrimonial Law to seek return of her articles. That cannot be done in a petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail. No valid ground has been made out to cancel the anticipatory bail.
7. In the result, this Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
