Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1048 (MAD)

Pattu v. Maduraiveeran

2015-02-23

M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2015
Judgment M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The revision petitioner is the wife of the first respondent and she originally filed M.C.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, No. III, Tiruchirapalli, against the first respondent, her mother-in-law and her in-laws. The said petition was transferred to the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirapallli (Magisterial Level) and renumbered as M.C.No.114 of 2014 and the same is pending adjudication. 2. The revision petitioner during the pendency of the said main case filed Cr.M.P.No.3843 of 2012 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short DV Act) claiming interim reliefs and it was opposed by the first respondent/wife by filing counter. 3. The trial Court, has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances and found that the dispute between both the parties and the grievances expressed by them can be considered on the basis of the evidence and exhibits let in during the trial and also found that the main case itself is ready for enquiry and therefore thought it fit not to consider the application filed for interim relief and recording the same, dismissed the said petition filed, vide order dated 03.09.2012. 4. The revision petitioner, aggrieved by the same filed an appeal in Cr.A.No.90 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, which in turn made over the case to the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 5. The lower Appellate Court, on going through the relevant provisions of the Domestic Violence Act found that there should be a prima facie case for Domestic Violence Act and the same has to be proved thereon so as to pass interim orders seeking the relief of either residence or protection. On going through the entire averments of the petition, the lower Appellate Court found that there is no proof of domestic violence and no prima facie case is also made out and citing the said reasons, dismissed the appeal on 29.01.2013. 6. On going through the entire averments of the petition, the lower Appellate Court found that there is no proof of domestic violence and no prima facie case is also made out and citing the said reasons, dismissed the appeal on 29.01.2013. 6. It is the vehement and forcible submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that though one of the registered sale deeds dated 13.09.2007 would disclose the fact that the property in question stands in the name of the revision petitioner herself, the said aspect has been completely overlooked by the Courts below and the petition itself has been formed in standardised format and therefore, it is not incumbent on the part of the petitioner to make out a specific case as the Court has to adjudicate the case on its own merits and finding of the lower Appellate Court is not in order. His further submission is that the claim for maintenance has been seized by the Honourable Supreme Court in Special Case (Criminal Appeal) Nos.4627 and 4628 of 2014. Hence, he prays for interference. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Courts below had rightly rejected the points urged for interim relief, even in the main case itself that the respondents are ready and willing to co-operate with the revision petitioner for expeditious disposal of the main matter and prays for appropriate order. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. The Lower Court has observed that the points for interim relief have to be gone into only at the time taking the main case and the main petition also is ready for final disposal. However, the Lower Appellate Court has held that in the application for interim relief, there are no averments to that effect with regard to the commission of Domestic Violence Act and however, ultimately concluded that the impugned order passed by the Lower Court needs no interference and the Lower Appellate Court has also touched upon the merits of the matter. However, the Lower Appellate Court has held that in the application for interim relief, there are no averments to that effect with regard to the commission of Domestic Violence Act and however, ultimately concluded that the impugned order passed by the Lower Court needs no interference and the Lower Appellate Court has also touched upon the merits of the matter. Therefore, this Court is of the view that deciding the interim application on the basis of the merits of the main matter need not be gone into by the Lower Appellate Court and therefore, the observations made by the Lower Appellate Court in that regard need to be expunged and accordingly are expunged. 9. In the light of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions that the respondents are ready and willing to co-operate with the trial court for expeditious disposal, this Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, who would submit that in the light of the said submission, this Court may pass appropriate orders directing the disposal of M.C.No.114 of 2014, pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, (Magisterial Level), Tiruchirappalli, at an early stage. 10. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of and the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level), Tiruchirappalli is directed to give preference and dispose of M.C.No.114 of 2014, which is pending on its file, on or before 22.04.2014. It is made clear that both parties have to co-operate with the trial Court for the early disposal. As already observed, the observations/findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court dealing with the merits of the main matter, are expunged.