Madras High Court
M.Meenupriya vs C.R.Ranganath Arun on 27 January, 2021
CRL.R.C.(MD).Nos.203, 204, 228 and 229 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRL.R.C.(MD).Nos.203, 204, 228 and 229 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1789, 1790,1962 and 1963 of 2017
1.M.Meenupriya
2.Minor Pranav
(Minor petitioner represented
through his motherand natural
Guardian/1st petitioner) : Petitioners (in all petitions)
Vs.
C.R.Ranganath Arun : Respondent ( in all petitions)
PRAYER in Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.203 and 204 of 2017: Criminal Revision
Petitions have been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the
records in Cr.M.P.Nos.3788 and 3789 of 2016, in D.V.C.No.2 of 2016, dated
09.12.2016 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Bodinayakkanur respectively and set aside the order dated 09.12.2016.
PRAYER in Crl.R.C(MD)Nos.228 and 229 of 2017: Criminal Revision
Petitions have been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the
records in Crl.M.P.Nos.3790 and 3791 of 2016, in M.C.No.35 of 2015, dated
09.12.2016 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Bodinayakkanur respectively and set aside the order dated 09.12.2016.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
CRL.R.C.(MD).Nos.203, 204, 228 and 229 of 2017
(in all petitions)
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Srinivasa Ragavan
For Respondent : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj
COMMON ORDER
CRL.R.C.(MD).Nos.203 and 204 of 2017 have been filed under
Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, challenging the orders passed in Cr.M.P.Nos.3788
and 3789 of 2016, in D.V.C.No.2 of 2016, dated 09.12.2016 on the file of the
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur.
2.CRL.R.C.(MD).Nos.228 and 229 of 2017 have been filed under
Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, challenging the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3790
and 3791 of 2016, in M.C.No.35 of 2015, dated 09.12.2016 on the file of the
District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur.
3.It is not in dispute that the marriage between the first petitioner and
the respondent was solemnized on 12.09.2010 and that the second petitioner was
born to them on 23.04.2014. Since there arose misunderstanding and the dispute
between the first petitioner and the respondent, the first petitioner has filed a
case in M.C.No.35 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial
Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur, claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor
son and also lodged a complaint under the provisions of the Protection of
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/6
CRL.R.C.(MD).Nos.203, 204, 228 and 229 of 2017
Women from Domestic Violence Act and the same are pending in D.V.C.No.2 of
2016 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur.
4.It is further evident that since the respondent has not chosen to file
the counter statement in both the maintenance case as well as in the D.V.C case,
he was set ex-parte. The respondent by claiming to be in America, due to his
avocation, has filed two applications; one to recognize his father
S.Chidampararaj as his power of attorney to conduct the proceedings on his
behalf and the other application for setting aside the ex-parte order passed
against him in both the proceedings in M.C.No.35 of 2015 and in D.V.No.2 of
2016. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after conducting enquiry, has allowed all
the applications vide separate orders dated 09.12.2016. Aggrieved over the said
orders, the revision petitioners have preferred the above revisions, now under
consideration.
5.When the matters are taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel
for the revision petitioners has represented that during the pendency of the above
revisions, the respondent/husband has come to India and participated in the
proceedings before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Bodinayakkanur that the respondent has already adduced evidence and that the
case is now stands posted for 'judgment'.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/6
CRL.R.C.(MD).Nos.203, 204, 228 and 229 of 2017
6.The learned counsel for the respondent has also endorsed the version
of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Since the respondent has himself
appeared and participated in the proceedings, granting of permission to appear
through his power of attorney has become infructuous. Similarly, since both the
parties have taken part in the proceedings before the trial Court, the revision
petitions challenging the orders, setting aside the ex-parte orders passed against
the respondent/husband have also become infructuous. As rightly contended by
both the counsel on record, nothing survives for further adjudication in these
petitions.
7.In the result, the above Criminal Revision Cases stand dismissed as
infructuous. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
27.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
das
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/6
CRL.R.C.(MD).Nos.203, 204, 228 and 229 of 2017
To
1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate,
Bodinayakkanur
2.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Note :In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in
5/6
CRL.R.C.(MD).Nos.203, 204, 228 and 229 of 2017
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
das
CRL.R.C.(MD).Nos.203, 204, 228 and 229 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.1789, 1790,1962 and 1963 of 2017
27.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
