Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1870 (MAD)

Rajeswari v. Kiran

2019-07-15

V.BHARATHIDASAN

body2019
ORDER : 1. The matter has been listed before this Court to decide the maintainability of the Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the following reliefs: “(a) Call for the records of the Crime No. 257/2017 and RCC 3/2018 at Tasgaon JMFC, Sangli District. (b) Examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the proceedings in Crime No. 257/2017 and RCC 3/2018 at Tasgaon JMFC, Sangli District. (c) Order the Accused R1 Kiran to pay the payment of arrears Rs. 16,66,300/- within 7 days of the date of passing this order. Also order the Accused R1 Kiran to pay the upcoming Monthly Allowance Amount without fault within 5th of every month else Jail punishment of 1 month for every month default. (d) Order to Accused R1 Kiran and R4 Ajay Jadhav to withdraw the false private complaint filed in Judicial Magistrate Court, Tasgaon with number RCC 3/2018 filed by stating the house located at Babar Plot, Vitthal Nagar, Varchi Galli, Tasgaon, Sangli District is Accused Kiran's house suppressing my legal ownership and possession obtained through DV case MC 14/2014 whereby they are doing contempt of judgment of Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi. (e) Issue a Memorandum of Writ of Mandamus with directions to R8 Judicial Magistrate Court, Tasgaon, to cancel the false case RCC 3/2018 filed as a private complaint by Accused R4 by stating the house located at Babar Plot, Vitthal Nagar, Varchi Galli, Tasgaon, Sangli District is Accused R1 Kiran's house by suppressing my legal ownership and possession obtained through DV Case MC 14/2014. Issue a Writ of Prohibition to immediately stop the proceedings in RCC 3/2108 (ad Interim), Writ of Certiorari to prohibit the order dated 19th Dec. 2017 stating my house as R1 Kiran's house which is against the order of JMC Paramakudi and also any other Writ whichever this Court thinks fit. (f) Punish the Accused R1 Kiran, R2, R3, R4 Ajay Jadhav and other co-accused in FIR 346/2017 and FIR 415/2017 for doing contempt of Court orders of Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi and filing false affidavits dishonouring the legal judgments and orders of Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi which is also an offence u/s. IPC 199, 200. (f) Punish the Accused R1 Kiran, R2, R3, R4 Ajay Jadhav and other co-accused in FIR 346/2017 and FIR 415/2017 for doing contempt of Court orders of Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi and filing false affidavits dishonouring the legal judgments and orders of Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi which is also an offence u/s. IPC 199, 200. (g) Punish R5, R6 and R7 who has at most duty to safeguard the truth but doesn't followed any Professional, Ethics and suppressed all material facts, legal records, legal judgments, legal orders, legal executions and reports and also done contempt by acting against the Court orders of Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi. (h) Punish the Accused R1 Kiran, R2, R3, R4 Ajay Jadhav and all other. Accused in FIR 346/2017 and FIR 415/2017 for breach of protection orders of Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi and acting against this Court order dated 26th Feb. 2018. (i) Pass orders to Accused R1 Kiran to provide damages of Rs. 60,00,000/- for all harassment and torture faced in the long journey of these 5 years in all these legal process and procedures created by deceiving multiple courts by R1 and others, in running between two states Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu for all executions and lost all my health, energy, life span and the health of my elderly aged parents. (j) Pass orders to Accused R4 Ajay Jadhav to provide damages of Rs. 60,00,000/- for all harassment (both mental and physical), Economic loss and torture given by him to me and my family in the possession of legally owned house at Tasgaon. (k) Pass orders to Accused R4 Ajay Jadhav to provide damages of Rs. 60,00,000/- for violation of my fundamental legal and human rights by not letting me to use and have my legal rights on a house owned through the judgment of Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi, which affected wholly my fundamental Human rights. (l) And also orders for damages of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for the defamation created with false case. (m) Interim prayer (f) of issuing a memorandum of Writ of Prohibition to R8 to stay the proceedings of RCC 3/2018 pending disposal of this Writ (a separate application is filed in this regard). (n) Grant cost to this petition. (o) Grant any further Reliefs to the petitioner, the victim of Domestic Violence case, as this Court thinks fit.” 3. (m) Interim prayer (f) of issuing a memorandum of Writ of Prohibition to R8 to stay the proceedings of RCC 3/2018 pending disposal of this Writ (a separate application is filed in this regard). (n) Grant cost to this petition. (o) Grant any further Reliefs to the petitioner, the victim of Domestic Violence case, as this Court thinks fit.” 3. Since the Registry raised objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition, the matter is listed before this Court to decide the question of maintainability. 4. I have heard the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person and also perused the records carefully. 5. From the perusal of the affidavit and other materials filed in support of the Writ Petition, it could be seen that, earlier, she has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Domestic Violence Act’] seeking various reliefs before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, in M.C. No. 14 of 2014. By order dated 23.06.2015, the learned Judicial Magistrate granted various reliefs to the petitioner including maintenance. But the order was not obeyed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein and based on the petition filed by the petitioner, distress warrant was issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, authorising the District Collector, Sangli District, State of Maharashtra, to attach the immovable property belonging to the petitioner's husband, by name Kiran, since the properties belonged to him are within the jurisdiction of Sangli District in Maharashtra and also directed the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, to register a case against the respondents 1 to 3 and others. Pursuant to the same, the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Town Police Station, also registered a crime under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, in Crime No. 346 of 2017 against the respondents, 1 to 3 and others, which is pending investigation. Thereafter, the petitioner also said to have given a complaint against her husband and others before the Tasgaon Police Station, Sangli District, Maharashtra State, for various offences under Sections 452, 498-A, 500, 504, 506, 509, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and a First Information Report has been registered in Crime No. 415 of 2017, and another First Information Report in Crime No. 257 of 2017 was also registered. Now, both the First Information Reports are pending investigation there. Now, both the First Information Reports are pending investigation there. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 6. First of all, a single Writ Petition with multiple prayers is not at all maintainable: That apart, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner relate to the investigation pending before the Tasgaon Police Station at Sangli District, Maharashtra State, for non-payment of arrears of maintenance, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, in M.C. No. 14 of 2014, to punish the accused in the above crime numbers registered in Sangli Police Station at Maharashtra, and also before the Paramakudi Town Police Station at Ramanathapuram District. But, all these reliefs cannot be granted in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If at all the petitioner's complaint is not properly investigated and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi, is not obeyed, the petitioner can only approach the Court concerned seeking appropriate remedy and she cannot seek for those reliefs in a Writ proceedings. The Registry has rightly raised the question of maintainability. In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is not at all maintainable before this Court and the objection raised by the Registry is sustained. Hence, the Writ Petition stands rejected at the SR stage. No costs.