This criminal original petition is preferred by the petitioner/respondent No.2 against the proceedings pending in D.V.A.No.33 of 2011, on the file of the learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate http://www.judis.Cnico.inurt, Coimbatore.
2. Brief case of the petitioner/respondent No.2 is that The facts of the case is that the petitioner /2nd respondent is no way connected with the 1st respondent/petitioner who filed the domestic violence case in D.V.A.No.33 of 2011. The petitioner attended the marriage of the 1st respondent and have no connection with the other respondents and the 2nd respondent was residing nearby to her house few years back and she attended the marriage at Tiruchendur which was held on 07.03.2011. But to her shock and surprise, the 2nd respondent received the notice from the learned 6th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Coimbatore, thereafter 2nd respondent came to know that the 1st respondent filed an application under the domestic violence act in which the petitioner was arrived as party. Hence this quash petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the domestic violence act 2005 clearly mentioned that who can be added as the respondents in the complaint. As per the definition of the act, the petitioner cannot be included in the proceedings as respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Domestic http://www.judis.Vnici.oinlence Act in Section 2(q) stated that:
“respondent: Means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this act.”
5. Proceed that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.
6. The above mentioned definition clearly mentioned the three categories:
i) Person who is in domestic relationship with the complainant
ii) Relative of the husband
iii) Husband
7. The petitioner will not come under the above mentioned three categories, therefore the very complaint itself not maintainable as against the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer of the http://www.judis.nic.in petitioner and sought for dismissal of the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
9. I heard Mr.D.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.J.Franklin, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
10. In this case, the petitioner was falsely arrayed as a party in the D.V.A. petition filed by the 1st respondent who is having grudge against her marital relations. Admittedly the petitioner was no way related or concerned with the affairs of the marriage and consequent acts arising there from. Further in the complaint filed by the 1st respondent, she has admitted that the petitioner is not a relative to the respondents. Therefore the D.V.A proceedings against the petitioner is unwarranted and without jurisdiction.
11. The petitioner should not be allowed in the corner of the D.V.A. proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent.
12. In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent against the petitioner in D.V.A.No.33 of 2011, on the file of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Coimbatore is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.06.2017 vs Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No To The VIth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Coimbatore.
M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.
vs Crl.O.P No.26986 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 22.06.2017