BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.11.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.12013 of 2025

1.Kannammal

2.Rethinasamy ... Petitioners Vs.

1.Sivagami

2.Minor Sarvitha Represented by her mother and natural guardian/1st respondent ... Respondents PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to call for records in proceedings in D.V.C.No.13 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (FAC), Magisterial Level, Sivagangai in respect of the petitioners and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Suresh For R1 : M/s.P.Pavithra

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the domestic violence proceedings in D.V.C.No.13 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (FAC), Magisterial Level, Sivagangai, insofar as the petitioners, who are the parents-in-law of the first respondent, are concerned. The domestic violence proceedings were filed as against the petitioners and their son, who is the husband of the first respondent herein.

2. The allegation in the domestic violence proceedings is that the first respondent herein and her husband got married on 11.02.2024; that matrimonial differences arose between them; that a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.866 of 2025 filed by the first respondent is pending before the Family Court, Madurai; that the first respondent had initially lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station, Sivagangai; that even before registration of the FIR, the matter was closed since the husband of the first respondent had handed over all sridhana articles during the hearing in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.12233 of 2025, which was filed for a direction to the police not to harass him under the guise of enquiry; that the impugned proceedings have been initiated by the respondents stating that, at the time of marriage, the first respondent’s mother had given 52 sovereigns of gold jewels, 5 kg of silver articles, and sridhana articles worth about Rs.5,00,000/-; that thereafter, the petitioners, along with the first respondent’s husband, demanded dowry and committed cruelty in connection with such demand; that the first respondent tolerated the cruelty and attempted to live with her husband; that first respondent’s husband misappropriated her jewels in various ways; and that the petitioners abetted the acts of cruelty committed by the first respondent’s husband.

3. The first respondent had sought for reliefs under Sections 17, 18, 19 and 19(8) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month under Section 20(a) of the Act, medical expenses of Rs.20,000/- per month under Section 20(b) of the Act, compensation of Rs.80,000/- under Section 20(d) of the Act, and compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- under Section 22 of the Act, against her husband.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that all the reliefs sought for in the domestic violence proceedings are only against the husband of the first respondent herein; that the second petitioner is aged about 75 years and the first petitioner is aged about 52 years; that no relief has been sought against the petitioners; and that the impugned prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and hence liable to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the captioned petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable in view of the recent judgment of this Court in S.Dhanalakshmi and others v. S. Vennila, reported in 2025-2-L.W. (Crl.) 541 and further submitted that the petitioners are also guilty of causing cruelty of the first respondent herein and hence the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, reported in AIR 2025 SC 2598 had held that since the Criminal Procedure Code is followed, a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable. Th