Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
K. Rajendran & Another
Versus
Ambikavathy & Another
Criminal Revision Case (MD) No.482 of 2012 & M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2012
Decided On : 08-01-2013
Domestic Violence - Shared Household - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 23, Section 17, Section 19, Section 29 - The court discussed the concept of 'shared household' and the rights of an aggrieved person under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It highlighted the procedure for granting interim and Exparte orders, the power of the Magistrate to pass protection and residence orders, and the right of appeal to the Court of Session under Section 29 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The First Respondent/Wife sought relief from the trial Court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, claiming residence orders and protection from the First Petitioner/Husband and the Second Petitioner/Mother-in-Law. The trial Court passed an interim order in favor of the First Respondent/Wife, granting her residence in the shared household and protection from dispossession.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the trial Court had the authority to pass interim orders under Section 23 of the Act and that the aggrieved person had the right to seek residence orders and protection from domestic violence. It held that the aggrieved person could not be evicted or excluded from the shared household without due process and that the trial Court's order was valid under the Act.
Issues: The issues before the Court included the validity of the trial Court's interim order, the interpretation of the concept of 'shared household' under the Act, and the right of appeal under Section 29 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the trial Court had the power to grant interim and Exparte orders under Section 23 of the Act, and that the aggrieved person was entitled to seek residence orders and protection from domestic violence. It emphasized the importance of following the procedure established by law and the right of appeal to the Court of Session under Section 29 of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the Petitioners, stating that the proper remedy for the Petitioners was to file a Statutory Appeal before the Court of Session under Section 29 of the Act. It granted liberty to the Petitioners to seek appropriate remedy through the statutory appeal process.
1. The Petitioners/Respondents have preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 21.09.2012 in D.V.O.P.No.29 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.
2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, while passing the impugned orders in D.V.O.P.No.29 of 2012 on 21.09.2012, has directed that the Petitioner/First Respondent should not be evicted by the Respondents (Petitioners in Revision Petition) from the house bearing Door No.36 A Chokkanathan Kovil Street, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District and also granted residence orders and further has directed that the Respondents (Revision Petitioners) should not cause trouble to the First Respondent/Petitioner in any manner and granted protection order, and further passed orders granting interim injunction restraining the Respondents/Revision Petitioners from any way interfering with the enjoyment of the house in which the Petitioner/First Respondent has share and in other properties thereby not to encumber the same. Further, the First Respondent/Revision Petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/-per month to the Petitioner/First Respondent/Wife towards her Food, Clothing and for Medical expenses and also directed the Inspector of Police, Valliyoor Police Station to render assistance to the first Respondent/Petitioner in fulfilling the directives issued.
3. The Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Respondents submits that the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, while passing the impugned order in D.V.O.P.No.29 of 2012 has committed an error in directing the Revision Petitioners/Respondents that they should not evict the First Respondent/Petitioner from the house bearing Door No.36 A Chokkanathan Kovil Street, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, wherein, she has a share, because of the simple fact that the house referred to supra belongs to the Second Petitioner/Mother-in-law exclusively which cannot be characterised in any manner as a 'shared household'.
4. The Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Respondents urges before this Court that the impugned order dated 21.09.2012 passed by the trial Court in D.V.O.P.No.29 of 2012 is a final order and in reality, the trial Court ought to have issued notice to the Revision Petitioners/Respondents and thereby an adequate opportunity ought to have been provided to them in the manner known to law.
5. Yet another submission of the Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Respondents is that the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, while passing the impugned exparte order in D.V.O.P.No.29 of 2012 dated 21.09.2012 should not have examined the First Respondent/Wife of the First Revision Petitioner on oath. In short, the contention of the Learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the procedure contemplated has not been followed and therefore, the impugned order stands vitiated in the eye of law.
6. That apart, the Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the Petitioners could have very well convinced the trial Court by producing earlier complaint lodged by the First Petitioner as against the torture and humiliation caused by the First Respondent/Daughter-in-Law. Furthermore, there is a divorce petition between the First Petitioner/Husband and the First Respondent/Wife which has a serious impact on the present proceedings.
7. The Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the marriage between the First Petitioner and the First Respondent has taken place on 10.07.1993 and as a result of the wedlock, they have given birth to two children and for six months, they lived at Valliyoor and in connection with the employment, the First Petitioner/Husband has gone abroad and he returned back to India after 5 years viz., during the year 1998 and for 4 years, he lived at Tirunelveli. Further, the Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the parents of the First Respondent/Wife are residing at Koodankulam and it is the
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
