R.Venkatachalam vs B.Jeeva

The petitioners herein are the respondents 2 to 5 in M.C.No.38 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Thoothukudi.

This application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings relating to the abovesaid case insofar as

the petitioners are concerned.

The said case was filed by the respondent herein viz., B.Jeeva, W/o.R.V.Baskaran, residing at Tuticorin. The said R.V.Baskaran is nothing but

the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 herein. Accordingly, the daughter-inlaw of the petitioners 1 and 2 filed the said case, in which, she prayed for the

following reliefs:

''''a. Directing the first respondent, under Section 20 of the Act, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner towards her maintenance every

month;

b. Directing the first respondent, under Section 20 of the Act, to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- or any other appropriate amount for celebrating the

marriages of the petitioner''s daughters;

c. Directing the respondents, under Section 18 of the Act, not to quarrel with the petitioner or to obstruct her in any manner in her workplace or in

any other public place;

d. Directing the respondents, under Section 22 of the Act, to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioners for the mental agony

and sufferings caused to them.''''

In the abovesaid reliefs, the reliefs ''c'' and ''d'' are alone against the petitioners herein.

Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that after the marriage, the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 herein blessed with

three daughters. Further, he added that after making allegations against the son of the petitioners 1 and 2, the respondent herein voluntarily

neglected her husband and left the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the petitioners 1 and 2 herein performed the marriage of the first daughter, for

which, they spent Rs.3,00,000/-. Further, with regard to other two children, the respondent herein received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the

petitioners 1 and 2. The said contention is clearly proved by the counsel on record on showing the assurance letter given by the respondent herein,

dated 16.11.2010, in which, the respondent herein has clearly admitted that only the petitioners 1 and 2 have spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards the

marriage expenses for the first daughter. Further, she admitted that she has received Rs.4,00,000/- with regard to the expenses of daughters 2 and

So, previously, in 2010 itself, the dispute between the respondent and the petitioners was settled by their well-wishers. Further, on going

through the entire averments made in the application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ''''the Act''''], she levelled allegations only against her husband.

At this juncture, it is necessary to extract below Section 12 of the Act:-

''''12.Application to Magistrate.- (1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may

present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:

Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by

him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.

(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without

prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence

committed by the respondent:

Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the

amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under

such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the

time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.

(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible

thereto.

(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by

the Court.

(5) The Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its

first hearing.''''

In this case, the petitioners 1 and 2 herein had given Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent towards payment of compensation, which was agreed by

her. So, even after receiving the said amount, filing an application against the petitioners, is a clear abuse of process of law, since the other prayers

are not towards the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that the case against the petitioners filed by the respondent is

unwarranted. Therefore, the proceedings in M.C.No.38 of 2012 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Thoothukudi, insofar as

the petitioners are concerned, are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the proceedings in M.C.No.38

of 2012 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Thoothukudi, stands quashed in respect of the petitioners alone. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.