CHINNA SAKKAIAH Vs. ANGALA ESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the respondents in Cr.M.P.No.435 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Virudhunagar. The first respondent in this case for herself and on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 filed the abovesaid case against the petitioners herein under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in which, she prayed for the relief to protect her from the domestic violence; to enhance the monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- or to pay total a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards maintenance; to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation; and also an order of stay from selling property in S.Nos.100/2, 100/3, 100/4, 100/5, 100/6 and 100/7, measuring an extent of 92 cents, situated at Mudiyanoor Village, Virudhunagar District. Now, the petitioners have filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the entire proceedings as illegal.

(2.) Admittedly, the first petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of the first respondent. The fourth petitioner is the in-law of the first respondent. Previous to filing of the application before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Virudhunagar, the first respondent lodged a complaint before the police authorities under Section 498-A IPC. After filing of final report in that case, the same was taken on file as C.C.No.120 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai, in which, the petitioners herein are all added as accused. After elaborate trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, acquitted the accused from the charges framed against them. Further, before lodging the criminal case, the first petitioner herein filed a petition before the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar, for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.15 of 2005. Subsequently, the same was dismissed as not pressed by recording the Memo. On the other hand, the respondents herein received maintenance as per the order passed in the abovesaid case. Subsequent to the dismissal of that application, the first petitioner again filed one another application in the same Court for the relief of divorce, which was taken on file as H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2008 and subsequently, the same was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the first respondent herein filed Cr.M.P.No.435 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Virudhunagar.

(3.) Now, the first and foremost contention raised by the petitioners is that even though the respondents in this application are related with the petitioners, they are not residing in the same roof, thereby, the respondents herein are not qualified in filing the application under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.