0

Madras High Court quashes the proceedings instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners.

Blog, blog , , ,

Case Title:  Dhanapalan and Ors.                         

                         Versus

                  Inspector of Police All Women Police Station, and Anr.

Date of Decision:    Reserved On 30.06.2023.

                                Pronounced On 07.07.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR.

Citation: CRL.O.P.No.27020 and Crl.M.P.Nos. 16586 & 16587 of 2022

Introduction:

Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.194 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Manargudi. This is the case of matrimonial dispute between the wife and husband. Based on the complaint of the defacto complainant, the case in Crime No.11 of 2021 registered mechanically without application of mind by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent failed to note the entire complaint and statement of the witnesses, registered the case under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harrassment of Women Act. The essential ingredients of the provision of Women Harassment like “Any Educational Institution, temple or other place of worship, bus stop, road, railway station, cinema theatre, park, beach, place of festival, public service vehicle or vessel or any other place” never mentioned in the final report filed by the 1st respondent and therefore, the final report itself is liable to be quashed.

Facts:

On 25.10.2013, the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant married one Loganathan, who is arrayed as A1 in this case, at Marina Mahal, Thiruvarur. At the time of the marriage, the parents of the defacto complainant gifted 22 Sovereigns of gold jewels to her, 5 Sovereigns to  her husband/A1, Maruthi K-10 Car worth about Rs.4.75 Lakhs, along with the utensils, household articles worth about rupees two lakhs. After the marriage, the 1st accused/husband and the petitioners herein, who are in-laws of the defacto complainant, harassed her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and luxury car. At the instigation of A4, A1 had abused and beaten the defacto complainant by demanding more dowry. In the meanwhile, the defacto complainant delivered a female child; her husband/A1 left her in her parental home nearly nine months never bothered to visit and enquire about the second respondent and the new born child and later, on the advice of elders of both sides, she was taken to matrimonial home. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners herein made comments that the defacto complainant and A1 are dusky skin, but the child is a fair skin, something else in the birth of the child. Since the in-laws are continuously giving torture by demanding dowry, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thiruvarur, the same was taken on file in C.S.R.No.209/2018, after the complaint, A1 endorsed that hereinafter he will never demand dowry. After that, the Company, where A1 working, sent him to the Poland Country, for training. A1 took her along with the child to Poland and continued to harass, gave mental stress to her, at the instance of her in-laws.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

In the charge sheet, except for a general and omnibus allegation, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners more so after return from Poland. Thus, the earlier incidents prior to 09.06.2019, the day when the defacto complainant left to Poland with Loganathan/A1, all condoned. Thereafter only, both Loganathan/A1 and the second respondent/defacto complainant joined together and residing in Poland. During the period of stay in Poland and after return from Poland on 01.07.2020, these petitioners have no role. There is no specific and distinct allegation against them, except for general allegations. The case is an outcome of matrimonial dispute. The Apex Court finding tendency of implicating immediate relations of estranged husband not uncommon, advised to take pragmatic realities into consideration.The return of jewels and car not seriously disputed, recorded in Crl.O.P.No.25050 of 2021. Further, interim maintenance is being paid by Loganathan/A1. From the above order, it is seen that interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to be paid until the issues were resolved at the Mediation Centre. It is seen now the Mediation failed. In view of the same, the petitioners to ensure that Loganathan/A1 to pay Rs.20,000/- as per the earlier order of the Trial Court, unless the said order is modified or cancelled.

On careful perusal of the Charge sheet, the allegations made taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, do not, prima facie, constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners, who are in-laws. Further, the complaint is manifestly attended with mala fide and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioners, who are in-laws of the second respondent/defacto complainant. Hence, this Court is inclined to quash the proceedings.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

 

0

Once the Will was probated, it cannot be questioned unless it is revoked by Appellate Forum says Madras High Court.

Blog, blog , , , , ,

Case Title:

The President, Sri Bhagavatha Thithiyaradhanai Committee     

 Versus

THIRU.JEEYAR.

Date of Decision:    Reserved On 07.06.2023.

                                Pronounced On 10.07.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI.

Citation: C.R.P(PD)(MD).Nos.845,846 and C.M.P(MD)No.3705 of 2018.

Introduction:

The revision petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.92 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nanguneri against the revision respondent for the reliefs of permanent injunction. The revision respondent filed a written statement and both side adduced their respective oral and documentary evidence and the suit is pending for argument. At the stage of argument, the revision petitioner has filed a petition in I.A.No.132 of 2018 to reopen the case and the petition in I.A.No.133 of 2018 to send for documents from the Sub Registrar. The respondent resisted both applications. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court has dismissed both the petitions on 21.03.2018. Aggrieved by the orders of the Trial Court, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of these respective Civil Revision Petitions.

Facts:

Petitioner has argued that the suit property belonged to Venugopala Ramanuja Dass and he had constructed “Sri Venugopala Ramanuja Koodam” to perform Bhajans and to provide food and shelter during festivals by forming Sri Bhagavatha Thithiyaradhanai Committee. After his demise on 09.06.1966, the said committee continued the charities. The suit property is under the possession of the plaintiff. Since the defendant interfered with possession, the plaintiff filed the suit. The defendant claimed right over the suit property by virtue of Will dated 07.06.1966 allegedly executed by Venugopala Ramanuja Dass in his favour and Will was permitted to be received as per order in I.A.No.1202 of 2017. The plaintiff contended that the said Venugopal could not execute any Will and it might be forged one. The said Venugopal has already executed a mortgage deed under Document No.3362/60 and the mortgage receipt in the year 1961. The signature found in Will belonged to testator or not
would be ascertained by sending the document to handwriting expert. Therefore, those documents along with Will have to be sent from the concerned Registrar and the same have to be sent for obtaining expert opinion. The Trial Court without considering the facts has passed erroneous order and these Civil Revision Petitions may be allowed.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

It is clear that the revision petitioner filed the main suit against the respondent for the reliefs of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The suit property originally belonged to Venugopala Ramanuja Dass, who constructed a mutt for providing shelter and food during the festival and also formed a plaintiff committee to administer it. The revision respondent contended that the said Venugopala Ramanuja Dass executed the Will in his favour 50 years back and after demise of Venugopala Ramanuja Dass, the Will was probated before the Court of law in O.P.No.31 of 1968. The plaintiff has not denied it. The plaintiff has not contended that the probate was revoked. Therefore, since the Will was probated, it would bind all the parties. There is no dispute that the suit is pending for argument stage after adducing both side evidences. As the suit is reached the final stage, the plaintiff has filed the petitions to reopen for sending the Will to signature expert as the Will could not be executed by the Venugopala Ramanuja Dass, which is not acceptable one. Once the Will was probated, it cannot be questioned unless it is revoked by Appellate Forum or through subsequent proceedings. It is pertinent to note here that the main suit is only for permanent injunction. It is not filed for claiming title over the suit property. Therefore, the observation of the Trial Court that the plaintiff filed the present petitions to further drag on the suit properties is upheld and the impugned orders of the Trial Court do not warrant interference. Thus, the Civil Revision Petitions fail and the same are liable to be dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

₹14 lakh compensation to the minor victim girl orders Madras High Court; criticises Legal Service Authority for seeking dismissal of case.

Blog, blog , , , , ,

Title:  T. Kaliammal         

                Versus

         The State of Tamil nadu and Ors.      

Date of Decision: 26.06.2023.           

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA.

Citation: W.P.(MD) No.3252 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) No.2758 of 2020.

Even though a special court had ended all proceedings in the case when the accused passed away while the trial was still ongoing, the Madras High Court recently awarded compensation of 14 lakh to a minor, mentally challenged rape survivor. Justice PT Asha noted that the local special court had done the physically and mentally handicapped survivor and her family more disservice by dismissing the case.

Introduction:

The petitioner, who is the mother of a mentally challenged daughter, who has been ravaged and impregnated by a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”, old enough to be her father, has knocked at the doors of this Court seeking compensation for this wrong inflicted on her daughter. The family comes from indigent circumstances. The mother is an agricultural coolie and the father works as a Watchman in a private company. They are blessed with two children, a son aged about 18 years, who is undergoing his B.Com course at Mano Arts College in Thoothukudi District and a daughter, who is the victim. The victim is mentally as well as physically challenged. Since the husband is employed at Chennai, the mother and children are living alone. Being an agricultural coolie, the petitioner is forced to leave the daughter alone W.P.(MD) No.3252 of 2020 and go for her work. The accused, who is about 55 years of age and a neighbour, had taken advantage of the victim’s physical and mental disability and has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her not once, but on several occasions. The condition of the victim is such that she was not even in a position to narrate the ordeal to her mother. It was only when she had become pregnant, that the mother came to know about the same and immediately, a complaint was lodged at All Women Police Station, Kadambur, Tuticorin, and an FIR too was registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”). The petitioner has moved this Court for a mandamus to terminate the pregnancy, provide police protection to the petitioner and her family members and to provide reasonable fair and compensation to the victim.

Legal Analysis:

The judge stated that despite the prohibition under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the High Court has the authority to right this injustice. “This closure is yet another move that has done the victim significant injustice and, in some ways, demonstrates the indifference shown to the victim’s plight. The bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would go into effect once the case was closed, making it impossible for the victim to seek additional compensation from the Court. Therefore, the petitioner contacted this Court appropriately. The Court stated that it had the authority to right this mistake. The Thootkudi District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) was also criticised by the court for how it handled its efforts to have the lawsuit dismissed.

The mother of a the victim girl who was discovered to have been regularly raped and impregnated by their 55-year-old neighbour had petitioned the court for just compensation. The case was already concluded by the special court since the defendant passed away while the trial was ongoing. The victim’s pregnancy was ended per the High Court’s directives, and she was given an interim settlement of Rs. 1 lakh. The District Legal Services Authority indicated in a counter-affidavit that the High Court’s request for compensation might be dismissed because the special court had concluded the case. The authority was criticised by the High Court for its callous and insensitive behaviour. “The fifth respondent has washed its hands of the issue and prays that the writ petition be dismissed instead of helping the Court attempt to rehabilitate and recompense the victim, who is a mentally and physically handicapped girl. It’s best to say as little as possible about the counter, said Justice Asha. The Court further determined that the victim was qualified to receive the maximum amount of compensation that may be paid under the various compensation plans. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) established the Tamil Nadu Child Victim Compensation Fund, and the court ordered the Thootkudi District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to pay the victim’s compensation amount from that fund.

Judgement:

This Hon’ble Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directs that a compensation of a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs only) be paid to the victim. This sum shall be deposited in an interest-bearing account with the mother as the guardian. The mother shall be permitted to withdraw interest every month. The said sum shall be utilised only for the up keep and the rehabilitation of the victim. The District Child Protection Officer shall visit the home of the Victim once in three months and submit a report to the District Legal Services Authority, Thoothukudi. The District Legal Services Authority shall ensure compliance of the above. In case, the report would state that the amounts are not being used for the welfare of the victim, then an application shall be made to this Court for modifying the orders by the District Child Protection Officer. In case, the mother requires substantial amount for the benefit of the victim, she can make an application to this Court for appropriate order. The amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- shall be paid from and out of the Tamil Nadu Child Victim Compensation Fund by the fifth respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance to this Court.

Conclusion:

This is a tragic case in which the accused aggravated penetrative sexual assault against the victim, a minor with mental disabilities, not just once, but multiple times. Unfortunately, he had already passed away before he could get any legal penalty. The Special Court closed the matter as charge abated without complying with Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act and Rules 7(1) and 7(2), The judge also directed the DLSA to ensure that the money was used only for the victim’s rehabilitation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Even if Marriage is illegal Wife is Entitled to Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Says Madras High Court.

Blog, blog , , ,

Title:   Loyola Selva Kumar

                 Versus

            Sharon Nisha 

Date of Decision: Reserved on: 20.04.2023
                            Delivered on: 26.06.2023


Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. MURALI SHANKAR.

Citation: Crl.R.C.(MD)No.417 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.4388 of 2021.

Facts:

The first respondent, alleging that the marriage between her and the revision petitioner was solemnized on 26.01.2018 at the petitioner’s parents home, Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli and due to their wedlock, the second respondent was born to them; has filed an application claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner has filed counter statement disputing the very marriage and also the paternity to the second respondent and consequently, liability to pay maintenance.

Legal Analysis:

Justice K Murali Shankar of the Madurai bench was dealing with a revision petition seeking review of an order passed by Family Court, Tirunelveli directing a man to pay a monthly maintenance of ten thousand rupees to his wife” and their son and to pay the entire arrears of maintenance amount within a month. The woman had earlier filed the maintenance petition contending that he had failed to maintain her and their son even though he was legally bound to maintain them. It was also submitted that he had demanded a sum of 25 lakh as dowry and when she could not meet the demand, he started avoiding her. She had also contended that he was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000 and also getting more than Rs 90,000 as monthly rent from the 11 houses that he owned.

On the other hand, the man disputed the very marriage and paternity of the child. He submitted that he had married a different woman in 2011 and had a child from that marriage. He further contended that though a divorce petition was filed, the same was dismissed after trial and an appeal against the same is pending. Kumar also disputed his salary as claimed by the woman and submitted that he was getting only Rs. 11,500 in hand and that he had been paying Rs.7000 as maintenance to his first wife and child. Thus, he contended that since there was no marriage between him and the woman and there was no relationship, he was not liable to pay maintenance.

Thus, the court was satisfied that the couple were living together as husband and wife and from this relationship, their child was born. The court also noted that though the man had argued that his salary was only Rs. 11,500, he had not produced any salary certificate or pay slip or any document from the employer to prove his income Considering the same, the court noted that the trial court’s order of monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 each for the woman and their child was not excessive.

Judgement:

This Court is of the clear view that for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C, the first petitioner can very well be considered as wife and the second petitioner as the son of the respondent. Hence, the finding of the trial Court that the petitioners are entitled to get maintenance from the respondent cannot be found fault with. Now turning to the quantum of maintenance, it is the specific stand of the petitioners that the respondent is working in ATG Tyre Company at Gangaikondan and is getting monthly salary of Rs.50,000/- and that he is owning 11 houses and is getting Rs.90,000/- as rent. But according to the respondent, though he admitted his work in a Tyre company, he is only receiving Rs.16,000/- and after deduction, he is only getting Rs.11,500/- as take home salary. When he was examined with regard to his owning of house properties and getting rent from the said properties, he would say that his father alone was owning the same and he has to get documents from his father. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondent has not specifically disputed the factum of owning houses and leasing out the same to the third parties. Moreover, the respondent has taken a stand that he is getting Rs.16,000/-, he has not chosen to produce salary certificate or pay slip nor taken any steps to sent for the documents from his employer to prove his income. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, though the respondent has been alleging that the first petitioner is still working, he hasn’t produced any iota of evidence to show that the first petitioner has been working at the time of filing of the case till now.

Considering the above and also the present economic scenario and the status of the parties, the fixation of the monthly maintenance at Rs.10,000/- for each of the respondents is very much reasonable and the same cannot be said to be excessive. The revision petitioner has not advanced any other reason or ground to impugn the order. Hence, this Court decides that
the revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court recently held that even if a marriage was not legal due to the existence of a first marriage, the second wife and any children from the second marriage would still be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court also noted that though the man had argued that his salary was only Rs. 11,500, he had not produced any salary certificate or pay slip or any document from the employer to prove his income. Considering the same, the court noted that the trial court’s order of monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000 each for the woman and their child was not excessive.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

1 … 10 11 12