ASHOKRAJ Vs. A.R. POOJASRI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is the second respondent in C.C. No. 3459 of 2015 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai has come forward with this petition seeking to quash the proceeding in C.C. No. 3459 of 2015.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the father of the second respondent herein and father -in -law of the first respondent herein. He would further state that the first respondent herein has preferred complaint under the Domestic Violence Act and in the complaint itself she has stated that after marriage she is residing in the house which was booked by her father. In paragraph No. 7 of the complaint it was stated at the instigation of the petitioner herein only the property has been registered in the name of the second respondent herein and not in the joint name of the respondents 1 and 2 herein and would further submit that at no point of time the petitioner is residing along with the respondents and would further submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence. He further submitted that on 30.06.2008, the petitioner retired from service and settled at Kovilpatti but the marriage was held on 18.11.2010, so there is no joint living with the respondents and prayed for quashing of the same. To substantiate his claim, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Madurai Bench of this Court reported in Indian kanoon (Revathi Rajasekaran Vs. State Rep. through the Inspector of Police and another).

(3.) Resisting the same, the learned counsel for the first respondent has taken me to paragraph No. 7 of the complaint, wherein it is specifically stated that at the instigation of the petitioner herein only the property has been registered in the name of the second respondent herein and not in the joint name of the respondents 1 and 2 herein and the master mind of the petitioner is behind him. He further submitted that in the memorandum of grounds, the petitioner has admitted the same and further submitted that it is a question of fact and it has to be decided only at the time of trial after letting in oral and documentary evidence and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.