The court upheld the maintainability of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act despite ongoing matrimonial disputes, affirming the need for factual resolution in trial.

1. This criminal original petition is filed under S.482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.M.P.No.10 of 2010 pending on the file of learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai

2. The brief facts which are necessary for determination of the case, are as follows: -

[i] The second petitioner Nalini (A2) is the mother of the first petitioner, the 3rd petitioner Swathi (A3) is sister, and the 4th petitioner Vishalakshmi (A4) is grand - mother. The first petitioner was married to Harina Lakshmi on 05.06.2009 at Kanchipuram and after the marriage, matrimonial home was put up at Virugambakkam, Chennai. He worked as Software Engineer at Bangalore, and thereafter he was transferred from Bangalore to Chennai. The respondent had filed case against his mother, his sister and his grand mother under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 under S.12, S.18, S.19, S.20, S.22 and S.23 and the same is pending before learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai is in C.M.P.No.10 of 2010.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the beginning of the marriage, the respondent was not interested in the marital life and the respondent very often did not inform to petitioners family and she went to her parents house and stayed with parents. Therefore, the 1st petitioner and respondent were having contradictory views in every walk of life. Though the respondent - complainant is exhibiting various allegations against him, however, only for the purpose of harassing, the entire family was implicated in this case. The respondent had filed this false case against all of the petitioner before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, who is having no jurisdiction at all and based on complaint, the Magistrate issued summons to the petitioners. The learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Saidapet, took cognizance of the case without having jurisdiction to try the case, since none of the allege acts, namely demand of dowry and harassment comes under the said Magistrate's jurisdiction. He further states that after the marriage, the matrimonial home was put up at Virugambakkam and thereafter, the 1st petitioner and respondent put up separate house in the same building of first floor and 2nd, 3rd and 4th petitioners were living separately and the entire house property belongs to the daughter - in law of the 4th petitioner. So, the respondent wife cannot claim a right to share the household against the second petitioner, third petitioner and fourth petitioner. Therefore, the second petitioner, third petitioner and fourth petitioner were implicated in the case for the purpose of harassing the entire family and he seeks to allow this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act as against the petitioners in C.M.P.No.10 of 2010 and sought relief under S.12, S.18, S.19, S.20, S.22 and S.23 of the Act before the learned XVV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

5. After hearing both the parties, it is seen that the solmenization of marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was on 5.6.2009 at Kancheepuram and after sometime, matrimonial home was set up at Saidapet, Chennai, which are not in dispute.

6. Due to the misunderstanding between the first petitioner and the respondent, the first petitioner - husband filed O.P.No.1916 of 2010 for divorce, while the wife has filed the H.M.O.P.No.19 of 2006 for restitution of conjugal rights and there are multiple matrimonial proceedings between the parties. There are allegations and counte