Madras High Court
Vennila vs Vidhya @ Malini on 5 August, 2024
C.R.P.(PD)No.2814 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD)No.2814 of 2024
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.14973 of 2024
1.Vennila
2.Venmathi .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.Vidhya @ Malini
2.K.Kadhiravan .. Respondents
Prayer : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to call for the records of the lower Court and acquit
the petitioners from all the charges in D.V.C.No.6 of 2021 on the file of the
learned District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate at Ranipet.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Nagarajan
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition arises in order to quash the
proceeding in D.V.C.No.6 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif
– cum – Judicial Magistrate at Ranipet.
Page No 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per
their rank in the Court below.
4. The complainant/Vidhya @ Malini is the wife of the 1 st
respondent/K.Kadhiravan. They married each other on 27.08.2017 at Arcot
in Ranipet District. The 2nd and 3rd respondents/civil revision petitioners are
the sisters of the said K.Kadhiravan. I have to inform myself that insofar as
quashing a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, as
Supreme Court held in the judgment of Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of
Punjab and Another [(2011) 12 SCC 588], I have to read the complaint and
find out if any averments are made against the persons who are coming
forward to quash the complaint. If averments are found, then I cannot quash
the complaint, but should direct the parties to proceed for trial.
5. A reading of the complaint specifically shows that the 1 st
respondent/K.Kadhiravan and his sisters, namely 2nd and 3rd
respondents/civil revision petitioners had continuously harassed the
Page No 2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
complainant/Vidhya @ Malini. She would plead that her sisters-in-law,
namely the civil revision petitioners, goaded her husband in order to mount
out the financial and emotional abuse on her.
6. She would plead that the civil revision petitioners played a major
role in disturbing her marital life through the 2nd respondent/K.Kadhiravan,
who is her husband. She also stated that the civil revision petitioners had
used to scold her with filthy language, and had treated her as a slave.
7. In terms of Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, any financial, emotional, as well as the physical abuse
are covered. Therefore, when specific averments made against the 2 nd and 3rd
respondents, I am not in a position to quash the complaint.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, would submit
that the sisters of the 2nd respondent have got married and are living
separately, and they find it great difficult to attend the Court hearings at
Ranipet.
Page No 3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Taking into consideration the plea made by the learned counsel, the
appearance of the civil revision petitioners/Vennila and Venmathi is
dispensed with. However, they shall appear before the learned District
Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate at Ranipet whenever their presence is
indispensable or essential.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with the
above observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.08.2024
mkn2
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Page No 4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
mkn2
To
The learned District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate,
Ranipet
and
05.08.2024
Page No 5 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
