DAMODARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. P. Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent. Though the second respondent has been served with the notice and her name has been printed in the cause list today, there is no appearance on her behalf.

(2.) While the first petitioner and second petitioner are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the second respondent/defacto complainant, the third petitioner is the sister of the first petitioner and fourth petitioner is the brother of the second petitioner.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the defacto complainant had married the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 namely, Yokesh Raj Mohan on 03.03.2014. Owing to certain misunderstanding, the couple separated very shortly and the husband of the defacto complainant had filed an application seeking for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P. No. 3505 of 2014. The second respondent herein had preferred a complaint before the first respondent police in CSR No.141 of 2015 dated 25.05.2015. Due to the said complaint given by the defacto complainant, the restitution of conjugal rights petition came to be withdrawn by her husband on 31.08.2015. In these circumstances, the second respondent's husband had filed a petition for divorce in O.P.No.3525 of 2015 dated 08.09.2015 before the learned II Additional Family Court, Chennai which is said to be pending.