P. DAMODARAN Vs. ANJALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in DVC.No.117 of 2023 pending on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Domestic Violence Act Cases, Coimbatore.

(2.) According to the petitioners, the first petitioner got married the respondent herein on 7/5/1975 at Tirumalai Tirupathi Devestanam Temple, in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of the wedlock 3 children, viz. Usha(2 nd petitioner), Uma and Sreenivasan were born. The first petitioner married one Devaki and the third petitioner herein born through her. The said Devaki died on 3/12/1995. The first petitioner is carrying on various business and he was also doing wet grinder business under the name and style of Bakyalakshmi wet grinders at Coimbatore. From and out of the income derived from his business, he has purchased numerous properties in and around Coimbatore. The first petitioner has settled the properties in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3 and had purchased several properties out of his own income in favour of his other children. Since the first petitioner has settled the property situates at Bagyalakshmi Complex No.108, NSR, Road, Saibaba Colony, Coimbatore in favour of the petitioners 2 and 3, the respondent has started to give various problems to the petitioners and she has also made a false complaints with the police. At the instigation and inducement of her son Sreenivasan, the respondent on ill advice filed the Domestic Violence case as against the petitioners to force the first petitioner to give the property to her. The respondent herein had filed application under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (43 of 2005) against the revision petitioners herein and prays to grant the following reliefs

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Domestic Violence Case filed by the respondent herein, who is estranged wife of the first petitioner, is a clear case of abuse of process of law. The learned magistrate erred in taking cognizance on the complaint, which is purely a property dispute and the same is not in accordance with law. The respondent herein, who is aged about 73 years, has filed the Domestic Violence complaint not only against the first petitionerhusband, who is aged about 74 years and also against the second petitioner, who is her own daughter and the the third petitioner, who is her step-son. The impugned complaint is not at all maintainable as against the second and third petitioners herein and they will not come under the purview of the definition of domestic relationship under Sec. 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also under Sec. 2(q) of the Act. None of the ingredients of domestic violence as envisaged under Sec. 3 of the Act is attracted and the same are missing and absent in the impugned Domestic Violence Case. The learned Magistrate has mechanically taken cognizance on the complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act without going into the averments and reliefs claimed in he impugned complaint and the same was taken on file without any proper application of mind.