This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.4176 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil and quash the same.
2.It is averred in the petition that the wife has filed the complaint under Domestic Violence Act as against the petitioners, who are husband and father-in-law. Admittedly, the complainant is not having any domestic relation with the petitioners herein. Decree of divorce was passed as early as on 21.11.2003 and the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act was lodged on 18.062010. Since the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act was filed when domestic relationship between the parties were not subsisting, the proceedings as against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners advanced his arguments on the strength of the decision of this Court in V.Pounraj Vs. Packialakshmi @ Veni reported in 2008(1) M.L.J.Criminal 984. He fairly conceded that the above judgment has been overruled. The learned counsel for the respondent advanced his arguments and cited the citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Curt in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another reported in (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 736. It is now well settled that once an act of Domestic Violence is committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve liability. In the above judgment, it has been held as follows:
?30.An act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny the benefit to which the aggrieved person is entitled under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including monetary relief under
Section 20, child custody under
Section 21, compensation under
Section 22 and interim or exparte order under
Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.?
In view of the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this criminal original petition is liable to be dismissed. However, considering the age of the second petitioner being 76 years, this Court is of the view that his personal appearance before the trial Court can be dispensed with, during trial.
3.For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal original petition is dismissed. However, the personal appearance of the second petitioner before the trial Court is dispensed with during trial. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil .