Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Krishnamoorthi – Appellant
Versus
G.Sharmila – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners claim allegations are vague. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondents argue sufficient foundation for complaint. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court discusses generic allegations' insufficiency for proceeding. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court emphasizes injustice of proceeding against petitioners. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final ruling strikes off the complaint. (Para 15) |
O R D E R
The father in law and mother in law of the first respondent, who has filed proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Gobichettipalayam in D.V.A.No.2 of 2025, are the revision petitioners seeking to strike off the said Application in so far as the petitioners. 2. I have heard Mr.R.T.Vishnu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.G.M.Gokulram for M/s. Ram Gokul Advocates, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are not residing with their son and daughter in law, who have set up a separate residence and pointing out to the allegations that have been made against these petitioners, learned counsel would state that the allegations are either generic in nature or vague and not supported by specific instances with reference to dates.
4
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
