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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 2286

R.HEMALATHA
Saravanakumar Chowdry – Appellant
Versus
Subha – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. K. Sakthivel.
For the Respondent: Mr. V.S. Rajaram.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are the respondents in M.C.No.74 of 2012, before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The respondent/complainant filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the present petitioners as well as one Mrs.Vallarasi and the parents of the said Mrs. Vallarasi, seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons to all the respondents in M.C.No.74 of 2012.

3. In the present petition, it is alleged by the petitioners that the respondent/complainant cannot maintain the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against them, since they did not live with the respondent/complainant and her husband at any point of time. It is further contended that the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, before taking cognizance of the offences did not call for any Domestic Incident Report from the Protection Officer or Service Provider, and therefore, the entire proceedings








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