P. JANIKARAMAN Vs. LAKSHMI
LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-106
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on November 08,2019

P. Janikaraman Appellant
VERSUS
LAKSHMI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

P.N.PRAKASH,J. - (1.) While the revisions in Crl. R.C. Nos. 698 and 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 and 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. ,;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.