SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 3570

S.PALANIVELU
Murugan – Appellant
Versus
Kasimani – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:M/s. V. Thirumal, M/s. A. Santhanam, Advocates.

Judgment :-

1. For the sake of convenience, the names of the parties as mentioned in the complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate Court are referred to in this order.

2. The following are the allegations contained in the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') and Section 200 Cr.P.C.:-

2(i). The first respondent is the elder brother of the complainant. The second respondent is his wife. The third and fourth respondents are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the first respondent. The parents of the complainant are no more. They have got two sons and five daughters. Everybody got married excepting this complainant. This complainant has been working as a daily wage coolie in a private banian company in Oranganpatti. She had been earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month for about ten years and she had given the entire amount of Rs.2,40,000/- to the first respondent. He also changed his name in the revenue records with reference to 1½ acres belonging to their mother without her knowledge, in which, he has been cultivating, thereby, he is receiving Rs.25,000/- per annum. The tiled house in w
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top