Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
K. Arul Prabhakar & Another – Appellants
Versus
Kamsala @ Banumathi – Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 453 of 2014 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 3 of 2014
Decided On : 10-03-2023
Domestic Violence Act - Protection Order and Residential Order - Section 12(1) of Domestic Violence Act - H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2001 - H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2007 - C.A.No.80 of 2013 - M.P.No.125 of 2008
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, who is the mother of the petitioners, filed a Miscellaneous Petition seeking protection and residential order under Section 12(1) of the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners and another individual. The petitioners challenged the order in C.A.No.80 of 2013, which was partly allowed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders passed by the lower courts were ex parte and without delving into the merits of the case. It was deemed appropriate to set aside the order of the VI Additional Sessions Judge and remand the matter to the X Metropolitan Magistrate for a fresh enquiry and to pass orders on merits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the respondent to claim residential rights in the properties of her deceased husband and the ex parte nature of the orders passed by the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a detailed enquiry into the marital status of the respondent with her deceased husband and her entitlement to residential rights, highlighting that the lower courts disposed of the petition without considering these crucial aspects.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed, and the order of the VI Additional Sessions Judge was set aside. The matter in M.P.No.125 of 2008 was remanded to the X Metropolitan Magistrate for a fresh enquiry and to pass orders on merits.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment dated 14.03.2014 made in C.A.No.80 of 2013 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and remanding the matter in Crl.M.P.No.125 of 2008 to the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai.)
1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated 14.03.2014 made in C.A.No.80 of 2013.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioners are the respondents in the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the respondent in M.P.No.125 of 2008 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, seeking for protection order and residential order; the petitioners are the son and daughter-in-law of the respondent; the respondent has filed the said Miscellaneous Petition under Section 12(1) of Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners and one Kannaiya Naidu, who has been arrayed as second respondent.
3.1. The respondent married Kannaiya Naidu on 05.09.1965; out of their wedlock, three children were born; the first petitioner is one of the sons of the respondent and the second petitioner is his wife; at the time of marriage of the petitioner, the husband of the respondent namely Kannaiya Naidu was working in N.L.C. and was earning Rs.400/- per month; since the income earned by Kannaiya Naidu was not sufficient enough to meet out the family expenses, the respondent sold some of her lands and sent Kannaiya Naidu to Saudi Arabia for getting an employment there; the husband of the respondent returned to India in the year 1994; the respondent purchased some of the properties in his name; she also constructed two storied building at No.16A, Viswanathan Street, Chidambaram, in the name of Kannaiya Naidu; after marriage of the first petitioner, they quarrelled with the respondent to transfer all the properties in his name; the petitioners got the signatures of the respondent in the blank non-judicial stamp papers and threw her out of the house; civil litigations are also pending in this regard in Fast Track Court, Chidambaram.
3.2. The respondent was the District Secretary in Congress Party and was popular at that point of time, this was disliked by her husband Kannaiya Naidu, so he foisted a false criminal case against her and later withdrew the same; the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.77 of 2001 and got an order of divorce from Kannaiya Naidu on 21.01.2004; she also filed a maintenance petition but later it was not pressed by her; once again the respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2007 for restitution of conjugal rights and that was decreed ex parte; in the meanwhile, the respondent joined Law College, Salem and completed her law degree and enrolled herself as an Advocate in the year 2004; the first petitioner is enjoying all the properties of the second respondent and she has no money to maintain herself and hence the respondent filed the petition seeking for protection order and residential order to live at the ground floor of the house situated at No.16A/7, Viswanathan Street, Chidambaram and also the monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and the said petition was allowed on 15.02.2013, by ordering protection and residential orders to reside in the ground floor of 16A/7, Viswanathan Street, Chidambaram, till her life time and monthly maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- per month along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
3.3. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners have preferred an appeal in C.A.No.80 of 2018 and the same was partly allowed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, by reducing the compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and confirming the protection order and the maintenance case is directed to be d
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for courts to conduct a detailed enquiry into the merits of a case, especially in matters concerning domestic violence and resident....
The court affirmed that domestic violence encompasses various forms of abuse, and maintenance should be awarded from the date of the application under the DV Act, not the date of the order.
The provisions of the Domestic Violence Act apply only to individuals in a domestic relationship, which was not established in this case.
The entitlement of reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is based on the occurrence of domestic violence and the suffering of the aggrieved person, as established by....
Due process in maintenance orders under domestic violence laws and the implications of delay in legal response.
Maintenance – Alteration, modification or revocation of order granting maintenance – Change in circumstance must occur only after an initial order is made under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2....
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
