J. ANITHA VALARMATHY Vs. K. JOHN HILTON MAHARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant (petitioner) in Crl. M.P. No. 1226 of 2009 who preferred complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tuticorin, is the petitioner in the present criminal revision case. The complaint of domestic violence was preferred making allegations against respondents 1 to 4 herein, who are respectively the husband, mother-in-law, sister of the husband and the father of the petitioner herself. Besides making allegations against them that they committed acts of domestic violence, for which they were to be prosecuted, the petitioner had also prayed for order of protection under Sections 19(5) and 19(7) of the Act.

(2.) The learned Judicial Magistrate, relying on the order of the learned single Judge of this Court (Thiru. Justice K. Mohan Ram) in Uma Narayanan v. Priya Krishna Prasad, 2008 3 MadLJ(Cri) 756, held that the complaint/petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the female persons was not maintainable and accordingly refused to take the complaint on file against the respondents 2 and 3 herein. By the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate took the petition on file (complaint on file) only against the respondents 1 and 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present criminal revision case.

(3.) Though four persons figured as respondents in criminal revision case, the relief sought for is only against the respondents 2 and 3. They are represented by the counsel.