M CHENGANMMAL Vs. S PREMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, the first petitioner herein is brother of the second petitioner and the third petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner. The respondent herein is the wife of the first petitioner. The petitioners herein are the respondents in M.C.No.8 of 2012, which is now pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai.

(2.) The said miscellaneous case was filed against the petitioners by the respondent under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. Before entering into the merits and de-merits of the petition, it is necessary to look into the facts of the case, in which, the respondent laid allegations against the petitioners. Admittedly, the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 07.06.2006 in P.V.R.Thirumana Mandapam, Thiruvapur, Pudukottai District. Thereafter, whenever the first petitioner approached the respondent for sexual intercourse, she used to prevent him by saying lame excuses such as, shyness and menstrual period etc. Ultimately, on 19.03.2007, the Doctor attached with T.P.N.Hospital, Erode, found that the respondent is having the problem of impotency, thereby, on 21.03.2007, the respondent left Chennimalai without the knowledge of the first petitioner herein. Thereafter, the first petitioner herein filed an application before the Subordinate Court, Perundurai, under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for annulling the marriage happened between the first petitioner and the respondent, dated 07.06.2006. The said application was taken on file as H.M.O.P.No.2 of 2009 and finally, after elaborate enquiry, on 19.03.2010, the marriage of the first petitioner and the respondent was dissolved. Before that, after leaving the matrimonial home, the respondent filed a case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai, in which, she is claiming maintenance from the first petitioner. In the said Miscellaneous Case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, directed the first petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the respondent towards maintenance. Subsequently, so many applications were filed by the first petitioner and the respondent and ultimately, M.C.No.18 of 2012 pertaining to this petition was filed by the respondent and the same is now pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai.

(3.) The first and foremost contention raised by the petitioners is that on the date of filing the petition, the relationship of husband and wife was not in subsistence and thereby, taking cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, under the provisions of the Act is nothing but illegal. So, for the said reason alone, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the entire proceedings. Now, on going through the copy of the complaint pertaining to M.C.No.18 of 2012, which is now sought to be quashed in this petition, was filed on 02.11.2012. On the other hand, the marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was dissolved on 19.02010. In this occasion, it is relevant to see the definition of Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(q) and 3 of the Act, which reads as follows: