Madras High Court

K.C.Thangamuthu Gounder vs K.S.Divya on 2 July, 2024

                                                                               C.R.P.(PD)No.2002 of 2022


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 02.07.2024

                                                       CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

                                               C.R.P.(PD).No.2002 of 2022
                                                          and
                                            C.M.P.Nos.10255 & 10257 of 2022

                1. K.C.Thangamuthu Gounder
                2. T.Saraswathi
                3. T.Maheswari                                             ... Petitioners
                                                          vs.

                1.K.S.Divya
                2.T.Kanagaraj                                              ... Respondents



                           Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                 India, against D.V.A.C.No.3 of 2020, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
                 Perundurai and quash the same.


                                   For Petitioners : Mr.V.Anandhamoorthy
                                   For R1        : Mrs.R.Jeenath Unisa Begam
                                   For R2        : No appearance




                1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 C.R.P.(PD)No.2002 of 2022


                                                        ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners, as against

the proceedings in D.V.A.C.No.3 of 2020, wherein, the first respondent herein

has filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai in

D.V.A.C.No.3 of 2020. The petitioners are the respondents in the Original

Application and filed this Civil Revision Petition, to quash the proceedings.

2. According to the petitioners, the first respondent is the wife of the

second respondent. The second respondent is the son of first and second

petitioners and also the brother of the third petitioner. The first respondent has

filed Domestic Violence Complaint in D.V.A.C.No.3 of 2020, before the

Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. The petitioners are living separately and they

have not committed any domestic violence as against the first respondent

whereas, their names have been implicated as respondents 2 to 4 in the

complaint, without any basis. The allegation against the petitioners are bald

and vague and there is no specific allegation made against them. The names of

all the family members were implicated in this case with malafide intention to

settle the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. There are no

specific allegation levelled against the petitioners and the petitioners are living

away from the first respondent and they never had any domestic relationship

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

with the first respondent and hence, pending D.V.A.C.No.3 of 2020 is only an

abuse of process of law and the first respondent is not entitled to any

relationship under the D.V.A.C.No.3 of 2020 as against the petitioners. Even,

as per the complaint, the petitioners will not come under the definition of the

respondents under Section 2(q) of the Act, 2005. Therefore, the complaint

against the petitioners has to be quashed.

3. According to the respondents, the petitioners along with the second

respondent harassed the first respondent and also demanded dowry from her

and at the instigation of the petitioners, the second respondent harassed the

first respondent. Therefore, she filed a petition under the Domestic violence

Act, before learned the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that

the first respondent is the wife of second respondent. The second respondent is

the son of first and second petitioners and also the brother of third petitioner.

The respondent filed a complaint as against the petitioners and the second

respondent in D.V.A.C.No.3 of 2020, before the Judicial Magistrate Court,

Perundurai and the same is pending and there is no domestic relationship

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

between the petitioners and the respondents. The first respondent is residing at

Karumandichellipalayam Post, Kanjikoil Road, Thai Nagar, Perundurai, Erode

District. The first and second petitioners are residing at Karattupalayam,

Matheswaran Kovil Street, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District. The third

petitioner is residing at Nanjanapuram, Moorthy Nagar, Erode. There is a

matrimonial dispute pending between the first and second respondents and in

order to settle the same, the first respondent included the names of the

petitioners as the parties in D.V.A.C. proceedings. Even, as per the averments,

there is no specific allegation has been made as against these petitioners and

the allegations are vague and bald. Therefore, the complaint registered as

against the petitioners is abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be

quashed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would contend

that at the instigation of the petitioners, the second respondent harassed the

first respondent and committed domestic violence as against her. Hence, she

filed a petition and in the petition, she has clearly stated about the Domestic

violence committed by the petitioners and thereby, prima facie material is

available as against these petitioners. Hence, the present petition is liable to be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

dismissed.

6. This Court heard both sides and also perused the records available.

7. The petitioners have filed this petition to quash the D.V.A.C.

Proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai, on the

ground that, there is no domestic relationship between the parties and the first

and second petitioners are residing at Karattupalayam, Kanjikoil, Perundurai

Taluk, Erode District and the third petitioner is residing at Moorthy Nagar,

R.B.Orchid, Nanjanapuram, Erode Road, Erode District. The first respondent

is residing at Thai Nagar Back side, Kanjikoil Road, Karumandichellipalayam

Post, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District and the second respondent is residing at

Thottani Chatiram, Erode Main Road, Perundurai Taluk, Erode District.

Therefore, there is no domestic relationship between the petitioners and the

respondents. But, the Trial Court, without considering the same, initiated the

proceedings as against the petitioners and that the first respondent has

implicated the petitioners' name in the D.V.A.C. proceedings is only to dissolve

the matrimonial dispute pending between the first and second respondents.

8. It is admitted fact that these petitioners are in-laws of the first

respondent and they are residing separately. Even, as per the complaint, there is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

no specific allegations made against the petitioners and that there are vague

and bald allegations against them. There is no averments made in the complaint

to attract the provisions of protection of women from Domestic violence Act. In

the absence of any specific allegations made against the petitioners and in the

absence of domestic relationship between the parties, it is not appropriate to

face the proceedings in D.V.A.C.No.3 of 2020.

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

produced the recent Judgment of this Court in C.R.P No.1418 of 2022, dated

05.12.2022, wherein, this Court, after elaborate discussion of so many

Judgments, this Court has held in paragraph Nos.7 and 8 read as follows:

"7.Considering the principles laid down both by the Full Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, this Court is of the considered view that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners 2 and 3. In the absence of any specific allegation, it will be a futile exercise and the petitioners 2 and 3 will be unnecessarily put to hardship. In the absence of any specific allegation in the complaint, the trial cannot go on in respect of the petitioners 2 and 3.

8.When there is no prima facie allegation against

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the petitioners 2 and 3, it is no desirable to allow the trial to go on against the petitioners 2 and 3. Perusal of the copy of the complaint reveals that the allegations are mainly against the first petitioner, who is none other than the husband of the respondent and there is no specific allegation against the petitioners 2 and 3 except certain general information in the complaint. If at all any clinching evidences are available with the respondent against the petitioners 2 and 3 during the course of trial, then it is for the respondent to initiate all appropriate action before the trial Court."

10. In view of the above said Judgment, this Court is of the considered

opinion that, there is no specific allegation made as against the petitioners at

present, and thereby, the complaint as against the petitioners is liable to be

quashed. If at all, any clinching evidences are available with the respondents

against the petitioners during the course of trial, it is for the respondents to

initiate appropriate action before the Trial Court in the manner known to law.

Since, there is no sufficient materials available as against the petitioners at

present, the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.

11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The proceedings

against the petitioners 1 to 3, who are the respondents 2 to 4 in D.V.A.C.No.3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

of 2020 is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,