Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1794
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
A.Suresh Anto - Petitioner
Vs.
Anto Teena Mary - Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.1179 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 24-06-2016
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Rajavelu
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Baskaran
The judgment reaffirmed the validity of interim orders passed under the Domestic Violence Act and highlighted the absence of provisions to set aside such orders.
Headnote:
Domestic Violence Act - Interim Orders - Section 12, Section 23, Section 25 - The court discussed the validity of interim orders passed under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act and the absence of provisions to set aside such orders. The court highlighted the power of the Magistrate to pass interim or ex-parte orders and emphasized the need for alteration, modification, or revocation of orders under Section 25. The judgment reaffirmed the validity of the interim order and the absence of provisions to set it aside.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a petition seeking interim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Magistrate passed an interim order, which the petitioner sought to set aside. The lower courts dismissed the petitioner's appeals, leading to the current criminal revision case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the interim order passed by the Magistrate was valid and highlighted the absence of provisions in the Domestic Violence Act to set aside such orders. The court also noted that the petitioner had the right to appeal the original order but had not done so.
Issues: Validity of interim orders under the Domestic Violence Act and the availability of provisions to set aside such orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the power of the Magistrate to pass interim or ex-parte orders under Section 23 and the need for alteration, modification, or revocation of orders under Section 25. It reaffirmed the validity of the interim order and the absence of provisions to set it aside.
Final Decision: The criminal revision case was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner praying to allow this criminal revision by setting aside the order dated 27.08.2015 passed by the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.A.No.169 of 2012 and direct the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to take up M.P.No.114 of 2012 for enquiry in C.C.No.1854 of 2012.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(i) The respondent as a complainant filed a petition in M.P.No.59 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking interim relief of Residence Order and monetary Reliefs per month under Section 23(3) of the Act. The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, after hearing the petitioner and after perusing the petition, has passed an order on 14.05.2012 which reads as follows:-
"1. The respondents 2 to 4 stay away from the petitioner to prohibit violence against her.
2. The respondents are ordered not to disturb the petitioner from the Shared house at 268/11, Udhayam Colony, Anna Nagar South, Chennai and the 2 to 4th respondents are not to ender the portion of the shared house hold in which the petitioner reside.
3. The 1st respondent is directed to pay Rs.3000/- for food, clothes, medications and other purpose, to pay Rs.1000/- for Basic necessities, for household expense Rs.2000/-, totally Rs.6000/- per month as monetary Relief till the disposal of the main petition.
4. The Inspector of Police, V5 Thirumangalam is hereby directed to give protection and all the other averments, petitioner's contention can be considered in the Main enquiry of the petition and after completion of enquiry."
(ii) As against the said order passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the petitioner herein and the respondents in M.P.No.59 of 2012 have filed a petition in M.P.No.114 of 2012 before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, seeking to set aside the Ex-parte interim order passed in M.P.No.59 of 2012 in C.C.No.1854 of 2012. The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing both parties, dismissed the said petition on 24.08.2012 and the said order reads as follows:-
"Heard and perused the petition and contentions, Argument and Notice filed by the petitioner/respondent in C.C.No.1854 of 2012. The other allegations of the petitioner is to be tried in the Main trial. The petitioner filed this petition to set aside the interim order passed by the Court. The other side argued this petition is not maintainable in Law and facts. The petitioner is ordered for only interim maintenance and the respondent can raise all the fact in the Trial. Hence, at this stage this petition is Dismissed as not maintainable in Domestic Violence Act."
(iii) As against the said order passed by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in M.P.No.114 of 2012 in M.P.No.59 of 2012, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.169 of 2012 before the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, and the learned Judge, after hearing both parties, dismissed the said criminal appeal confirming the order passed in M.P.No.114 of 2012 in M.P.No.59 of 2012 in C.C.No.1854 of 2012, by the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. As against the dismissal order passed by the learned XVI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.A.No.169 of 2012, the present criminal revision case is preferred by the petitioner before this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, without hearing the respondents in M.P.No.59 of 2012, has passed the ex-parte interim order on 14.05.2012 in the said petition and therefore, the respondents therein have filed a petition in M.P.No.114 of 2012 in M.P.No.59 of 2012 seeking to set aside the said ex-part
