J. Kalyanasundaram v. C.Vidhya

ORDER The petitioners herein have challenged D.V.C.No.65 of 2022, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Tirunelveli. The above D.V.C.No.65 of 2022 has been filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2.The first petitioner and the respondent got married on 13.12.2018. The respondent herein has levelled certain allegations primarily against the first petitioner, though in Paragraph No.10 allegations have also been made against the petitioners 2 and 3 for defending the conduct of the first petitioner. The allegation of the respondent is that the first petitioner was constantly torturing her and therefore, she had asked the petitioners 2 and 3 as parents of the first petitioner and parents-in-law of the respondent to intervene. However, they have declined to intervene and have instead threatened the respondent. That apart, it is submitted that the respondent has also delivered a child. However, none of the petitioners have come forward even to see the child.

3.That apart, in Paragraph Nos.16 and 17, the respondent has made the following allegations against the petitioners, which read as under:- ''16.Foe;ij gpwe;j jfty; Nfl;L 1 Kjy; 3-Mk; vjpHkDjhuHfs; 10 ehl;fs; kDjhuhpd; ngw;NwhH tPl;by; te;J jq;fpapUe;jdH. mt;thW jq;fpapUe;j NghJ 1tJ vjpHkDjhuH KO NeuKk; Fbj;J tpl;L nfl;l thHj;ijfshy; kDjhuiu jpl;b mtkhdg;gLj;jp clystpYk;> kdjstpYk; fhag;gLj;jpAs;shH. kDjhuH mWit rpfpr;ir %ykhf Foe;ij ngw;wtH vd;W rpwpJk; fUizapy;yhky;

mtiu

1tJ

vjpHkDjhuH

mbg;gJk;> kpjpg;gJkhf ,Ue;Js;shH.

¶17kDjhuhpd; je;ij 2-tJ kw;Wk; 3-tJ kDjhuhplk; vd; kfisAk;> NguidAk; vg;nghOJ mioj;Jr; nry;yg; NghfpwPHfs;? vd;W Nfl;ljw;F vg;NghJ ehq;fs; Nfl;l tujl;ridahfpa &gha; 5 yl;rk; nuhf;fj;Jld; 10 gTd; jq;f eiffs; jUfpwPHfNsh mg;NghJjhd; cq;fs; kfis Vw;Wf;nfhs;Nthk;. ,y;iynadpy; tPl;by; NrHf;f khl;Nlhk; vd;W $wpAs;sdH. mjd; gpd;G 2 ehl;fs; fopj;J 1tJ vjpHkDjhH nrd;wNghJ mtUk; ehq;fs; Nfl;lkhjphp eiffs; kw;Wk; gzj;ij rPf;fpuk; jUtjw;fhd topiag;ghH! ,y;iynadpy; vd; tPl;by; cd;idr; NrHf;fkhl;Nlhk; vd;W $wptpl;lhH. jpUkz Neuj;jpy; 90 fpNyh vil nfhz;bUe;j 1tJ vjpHkDjhH jtwhd Fb kw;Wk; czTg;gof;fj;jhy; 130 fpNyh vil $bapUe;j fhuzj;jhy; jq;fs; cly; eyj;jpyhtJ vd; Ngr;ir Nfl;L mf;fiw nrYj;Jq;fs; vd;W kDjhuH 1tJ vjpHkDjhuhplk; $wpajw;F 'Nghb ehNa> ehd; vd; rk;ghj;jpak; vd; mg;gh rk;ghj;jpak;> nrhj;Jf;fs; midj;ijAk; mopg;gJld; cd; eiffisAk; tpw;W mDgtpg;Ngd;. Mdhy; cd; Ngr;ir Nfl;f khl;Nld;. ePAk; cd; kfDk; gpr;irnaLj;J gpioAq;fs;"

vd;W

$wpaJ

Nfl;L

kDjhuH

kpfTk; Ntjidaile;Js;shH. ,jw;F NkYk; vdf;nfjpuhfg; Ngrpdhy; vd; trk; cs;s cd; fy;tpr;rhd;wpjo; kw;Wk; gh];Nghl;il vhpj;J tpLNtd; vd;W 1tJ vjpHkDjhH kpul;bAs;shH.''

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondent's father is a practicing Advocate in Tirunelveli Bar and is putting spokes into the family by refusing to co-operate with the conciliation by the first petitioner.

5.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6.In my view, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners 2 and 3 appears to be unnecessary. The respondent is entitled to initiate proceedings against the first petitioner alone, who is the legally wedded husband and is alleged to have tortured the respondent.

7.The proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cannot be a tool for harassing the in-laws, if indeed, there is no case made out for punishing them under the Act. This is a fit case where the proceedings against the petitioners 2 and 3 are liable to be dropped.

8.In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands partly allowed as far as the petitioners 2 and 3 alone are concerned. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli, shall also attempt to refer the matter for mediation considering the fact that the first petitioner and the respondent are aged about 32 and 27 years respectively and dispose D.V.C.No.65 of 2022 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No

12.06.2023 Internet : Yes/No smn2 To The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli.

C.SARAVANAN, J. smn2

12.06.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12.06.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.3172 and 3174 of 2023 1.J.Kalyanasundaram 2.Dr.K.Jega Mohan 3.J.Krishna .. Petitioners Versus C.Vidhya .. Respondent Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the petition in D.V.C.No.65 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Tirunelveli. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Asif Mohamed For Respondent : Mr.M.Saravanakumar