Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2179
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
P. Janikaraman & Others - Petitioners
Versus
Lakshmi & Others - Respondents
Crl.R.C. Nos. 698 & 718 of 2013 & Crl.O.P. No. 18292 of 2013
Decided On : 08-11-2019
For the Petitioners:D. Sivakumaran, Advocate
For the Respondents:M. Devaraj, P. Kritika Kamal, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
The central legal point established is the requirement to exhaust the appeal remedy under Section 29 of the DV Act before seeking recourse under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Domestic Violence Act - Matrimonial Discord - Section 29 of the DV Act - Summary
Fact of the Case:
Lakshmi and Vanitha filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) against Palanisamy, Janakiraman, Krishnan, and Rameshwari due to matrimonial discord. They sought interim reliefs and directions from the trial court, which were challenged by Janakiraman, Krishnan, and Rameshwari.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the criminal revisions (Crl.R.C.Nos.698 & 718 of 2013) as the remedy available to the parties was under Section 29 of the DV Act. The court also dismissed the criminal original petition (Crl.O.P.No.18292 of 2013) as there were prima facie materials requiring a detailed inquiry by the trial court, and the proceedings had already commenced.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to interim reliefs and directions granted by the trial court under the DV Act, and the petition to quash the main case in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to exhaust the appeal remedy under Section 29 of the DV Act before approaching the court under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. The court also highlighted the need for a detailed inquiry into the prima facie materials presented in the complaint.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Crl.R.C.Nos.698 & 718 of 2013 and Crl.O.P.No.18292 of 2013, thereby upholding the interim orders and allowing the proceedings to continue.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.698 of 2013: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 17.05.2013 passed in C.M.P.No.592 of 2013 in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Additional Mahila Court), Salem.
Crl.R.C.No.718 of 2013: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 29.05.2013 passed in C.M.P.No.642 of 2013 in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Additional Mahila Court), Salem.
Crl.O.P.No.18292 of 2013: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Crl.P.C. to call for the entire records in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate Court (Additional Mahila Court), Salem and quash the same.)
1. While the revisions in Crl.R.C.Nos.698 & 718 of 2013 have been filed to set aside the orders dated 17.05.2013 and 29.05.2013 passed in C.M.P.Nos.592 & 642 of 2013 in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013, respectively, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court (Additional Mahila Court), Salem, the petition in Crl.O.P.No.18292 of 2013 has been filed to call for the entire records in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate Court (Additional Mahila Court), Salem and quash the same.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.
3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are as under:
3.1 It is the case of Lakshmi that she is the wife of Palanisamy and through him she begot a daughter, Vanitha. On account of matrimonial discord, the couple got estranged. Therefore, Lakshmi and Vanitha initiated proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate Court (Additional Mahila Court), Salem, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity “the DV Act”), claiming various reliefs against Palanisamy, Janakiraman, Krishnan and Rameshwari.
3.2 It is represented that Janakiraman was born to Palanisamy through his first wife and Krishnan is the younger brother of Palanisamy and Rameshwari is Krishnan’s wife.
3.3 Lakshmi and Vanitha filed C.M.P.No.592 of 2013 in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013 for certain interim reliefs, which were granted by the trial Court, by order dated 17.05.2013. Since the respondents therein did not comply with the said interim order, Lakshmi and Vanitha filed C.M.P.No.642 of 2013 in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013 under Section 31 of the DV Act.
3.4 The trial Court issued directions in C.M.P.No.642 of 2013 in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013 on 29.05.2013 to the Inspector of Police, Kannankurichi Police Station, to register a case and ensure that Lakshmi and Vanitha were given accommodation in the shared household.
3.5 Challenging the order dated 17.05.2013 in C.M.P.No.592 of 2013 in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013, Janakiraman, Krishnan and Rameshwari have filed Crl.R.C.No.698 of 2013 under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. before this Court.
3.6 Similarly, challenging the order dated 29.05.2013 in C.M.P.No.642 of 2013 in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013, Janakiraman, Krishnan and Rameshwari have filed Crl.R.C.No.718 of 2013 under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. before this Court.
4. Notwithstanding the above, Janakiraman, Krishnan and Rameshwari filed Crl.O.P.No.18292 of 2013 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the main case in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013. On the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, all these matters were clubbed together and posted before this Court, for disposal.
5. It may be relevant to state here that Palanisamy has not chosen to file any revision, but, only the others have approached this Court.
6. Heard Mr.D.Shivakumaran, learned counsel for Janakiraman, Krishnan and Rameshwari and Mr.M.Devaraj, learned counsel for Lakshmi and Vanitha and Mrs. P. Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondents 4 and 5/State in Crl.R.C.No.718 of 2013.
7. It is represented that Palanisamy has expired and the proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.106 of 2013 has almost concluded and final orders are awaited
