Daily Archives: June 13, 2013

Husband cannot file maintenance case under sec 125 Crpc- why because section says so! what was the husbnd side Advocate doing ? Gem from Madras HC

Husband cannot file maintenance case under sec 125 Crpc- why because section says so! what was the husbnd side Advocate doing ? Gem from Madras HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.06.2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

Crl.O.P.No.10466 of 2012

B.Clement… Petitioner

Vs.

Mrs.Mcthel Thanga Annam @ P.Mcthel … Respondent

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to transfer the case in M.C.No.3 of 2011 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri to be tried with M.C.No.21 of 2011 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

For petitioner : Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan

For respondent : Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishna

Government Advocate

[Criminal Side]

ORDER

Entire judgement uploaded to link below
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-JZGIVy-RW5UUY1N1FRSG1BSTQ/edit?usp=sharing

Wife files DV; gets 25000 p.m. + resid. mm court; husb appeals @ sessn court, sessn 5000/- pm & reside with hubb y! Wife taken back all her jeweler etc; When case comes up t MM court, wife absent at MM court (drags case), wife’s main aim is to drag the in laws to court , MM court dismisses wife’s appln as she is absent, wife goes to HC on criminal app eal , HC has ALL the sympathy for wife’s absence and (a) wife’s Appeal is allowed (b) Acquittal order passed by the tria l Court is set aside (c) The matter is remitted back to the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai (tr ial court) …basically give one more chance to wife !!!! (d) Hc directs that Husband and wife to appear on all dates (e ) wife’s in-laws to attend court !! (f) The learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. directed to disp ose of matter within a period of 45 days from the date of HC order , conduct case if necessary on day to day basis.

Wife files DV; gets 25000 p.m. + resid. mm court; husb appeals @ sessn court, sessn 5000/- pm & reside with hubby! Wife taken back all her jeweler etc; When case comes up t MM court, wife absent at MM court (drags case), wife’s main aim is to drag the in laws to court , MM court dismisses wife’s appln as she is absent, wife goes to HC on criminal appeal , HC has ALL the sympathy for wife’s absence and (a) wife’s Appeal is allowed (b) Acquittal order passed by the trial Court is set aside (c) The matter is remitted back to the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai (trial court) …basically give one more chance to wife !!!! (d) Hc directs that Husband and wife to appear on all dates (e) wife’s in-laws to attend court !! (f) The learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. directed to dispose of matter within a period of 45 days from the date of HC order , conduct case if necessary on day to day basis.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:25.06.2012

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. MALA

Criminal Appeal No.709 of 2010

K.Niranjani .. Appellant/Complainant

v.

1.R.T.Dinesh

2.R.T.Giri

3.T.Amsa .. Respondents

Prayer:Criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 19.10.2010, in M.P.No.5872 of 2010 in D.V.C.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Ezhil Nilavan

For Respondents : Mr.S.V.Vijay Prashanth

J U D G M E N T

This appeal arises out of the judgment of dismissal dated 19.10.2010, in M.P.No.5872 of 2010 in D.V.A.C.No.1 of 2010, on the file of the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, stating that on the absence of complainant, the complaint has been dismissed and the accused were acquitted.

completed order uploaded here

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-JZGIVy-RW5LVdrY0NobGlZams/edit?usp=sharing

Madras HC agrees-MORE THAN HALF all CHILD sex abuse victims BOYS! 52.94% boys & 47.06% girls

Its official – Madras HC agrees that MORE THAN HALF of all CHILD sexual abuse victims are BOYS! 52.94% boys & 47.06% girls;

Quoting the Honb’le HC "….In order to examine the incidence of sexual abuse among child respondents, the questionnaire was administered to 12,447 children belonging to the five different categories including children in family environment, children in schools, children in institutions, children at work and street children. The study looked into four severe forms and five other forms of sexual abuse. Out of the total child respondents, 53.22% reported having faced one or more forms of sexual abuse that included severe and other forms. Among them 52.94% were boys and 47.06% girls….."

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 07/03/2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

W.P.(MD)No.8355 of 2011

and

W.P.(MD)No.12572 of 2011

and

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

M.Veersamy .. Petitioner in

both writ petitions

Vs.

1.State of Tamilnadu,

represented by Home Secretary,

Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai.

2.District Collector,

Madurai District,

Collectorate,

Madurai.

3.Superintendent of Police,

O/o. Superintendent of Police,

Madurai District, Madurai. .. Respondents 1 to 3 in

both writ petitions

4.Inspector of Police,

Koodal Pudhur Police Station,

Koodal Pudhur,

Madurai.

5.Arockiyasamy

6.The Chief Educational Officer,

Madurai District.

7.K.Amalirose

8.Shanmuga Kumaraswamy

9.Director,

Directorate of Social Welfare,

Chepauk,

Chennai.

(R6 to R9 impleaded as party

respondents as per order of the court

dated 24.08.2011)

10.U.Vasuki

D/o.R.Umanath,

State General Secretary,

All India Democratic Women’s Association,

13, Mosque Street,

Chepauk, Chennai.

(R-10 impleded as per the order of the court

dated 16.12.2011 in MP(MD)No.4/2011)..

Respondents 4 to 9 in W.P.(MD)No.8355/2011

4.Chief Educational Officer,

Chief Educational Office,

Madurai District.

Madurai.

5.Inspector of Police,

Koodal Pudhur Police Station,

Koodal Pudhur,

Madurai.

6.Investigating Officer/Inspector of Police,

All women Police Station,

Samayanallur,

Madurai District.

7.S.Arockiayasamy

8.K.Amalirose

9.Shanmuga Kumarasamy ..

Respondents 4 to 9 in W.P.No.12572 of 2011

W.P.(MD)No.8355 of 2011 has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the third respondent to constitute a special investigating team led by a gender sensitive police officer not below the rank of D.S.P consisting of experienced and sensitive police officers preferably female and to transfer the investigation of Crime No.331 of 2011 from the fourth respondent to the newly constituted special team for the effective investigation of the case in the light of the guidelines evolved by the Honourable Supreme Court in Delhi Domestic Working Women Forum Vs. Union of India and Sakshi Vs. Union of India and directing the second respondent to take necessary steps to restore confidence among the girl students of the Government High School, Podhumbu by involving Child Welfare Committee and other agencies if necessary.

REST OF THE JUDGEMENT UPLOADED TO LINK BELOW

SOURCE
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-JZGIVy-RW5czdqYWx6QzROQlU/edit?usp=sharing

Husband did NOT take wife out with him, DV penalty 2 lakhs + monthly maintenance , Husband files revision against wife’s DV victory, husband’s advocate absent, HC passes order AGAINST husband i.e. affirming sessions court verdict !!

Husband did NOT take wife out with him, DV penalty 2 lakhs + monthly maintenance , Husband files revision against wife’s DV victory, husband’s advocate absent, HC passes order AGAINST husband i.e. affirming sessions court verdict !!

NOTES

****************

  • wife files DV
  • alleges that husband made snide remarks that wife is ugly & that husband does not take her out with him etc : Quote “….Clear evidence has been adduced to the effect that the revision petitioner refused to take the first respondent along with him, when he would go out, stating that she was ugly and that she was not fit to accompany him….”
  • JM court No.II, Virudhunagar orders monthly maint Rs 2,500/- (wife 1500 + kid 1000 p.m. ) and Rs 2 lakhs compensation (not clear what the compensation is for !!)
  • Husband appeals to sessions court, sessions court reduces monthly maint to Rs 2000/- (1000+1000) and compensation to Rs 1 Lakh
  • Husband appeals to HC
  • But NO ONE representing husband …i.e husband’s advocate absent !!
  • HC makes negative remark of husband’s absence and HC affirms sessions court order, i.e. passes order against husband

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 09/03/2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.653 of 2011

N.Satishkumar … Petitioner/Respondent

Vs.

1.Meenakshi

2.Minor Petchi … Respondents/Petitioners

[Respondent No.2
minor

  represented by her

  mother and next
friend

  1st respondent]

Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C praying to call for the records of the appellate order, dated 11.05.2011 in C.A.No.9 of 2011 of the Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court)m Virudhunagar against the order in Cr.M.P.No.2110 of 2009 dated 22.01.2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and set aside the same.

!For Petitioner … Mr.P.Thangaiah

(No appearance)

^For Respondents … M/s.D.Fariyana Ghoushia

for Mr.G.Mariappan

Rest of the judgement on this Link

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-JZGIVy-RW5QkpYdUNjank2Wlk/edit?usp=sharing