Daily Archives: December 1, 2015

Class IX student delivers baby in washroom. Now rape case on boyfriend & headmaster suspended !!

A Class IX student delivered a baby in her school washroom. Obviously she wasn’t married, she has been having affairs and she was pregnant for some time before delivery. so the authorities did NOT punish that female or question the parents, the go and file a rape case on one boy and suspend the headmaster !!

Can women’s lib be better than this !!

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

SETTLEMENTS daily !! Marriage WITHOUT kids. Madras HC Quash for 8 lakhs. Such women can remarry YOU

* Vaidegi got married to Jegadish on 27.01.2010 and they have no issues through the wedlock.
* Vaidegi lodged a police complaint against Jegadish, based on which, a case in Crime No.5 of 2014 was registered
* Police has filed a final report in C.C.No.1038 of 2015 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai
* On complaint by Vaidegi, criminal case in # 805 of 2014 was registered against Santhapriya & Sankar, in-laws of Vaidegi

* …..Now it appears that the parties have arrived at a compromise….. !!

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 15.09.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH

Crl.OP.Nos.7836, 22996 and 23062 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015

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

Crl.O.P.No.7836 of 2015

1.Jagadish
2.Arumugam
3.Mrs.Chandra
4.Mrs.Priya
5.Sankar .. Petitioners

Vs

1.J.Vaidegi
2.The Protection Officer,
District Social Welfare Office,
District Collector’s Office Complex,
Singaravelar Maligai, 8th Floor,
Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. .. Respondents

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

Crl.O.P.No.22996 of 2015

1.Mrs.Santhapriya
2.Sankar .. Petitioners
vs
1.The State,
Rep. By Inspector of Police,
W-6, AWPS, Secretariat Colony,
Chennai.

2.J.Vaidegi .. Respondents

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

Crl.O.P.No.23062 of 2015

Jagadish .. Petitioner

vs

1.The State,
Rep. By Inspector of Police,
W-6, AWPS, Secretariat Colony,
Chennai.

2.J.Vaidegi .. Respondents.

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

Prayer: Criminal Original petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.Nos.119, 1281 and 1038 of 2015 pending trial on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.C.S.Raja Chockalingam
For Respondents : Mr.C.Eamlia, Additional Public Prosecutor
G.M.Sankar for Defacto complainant

COMMON ORDER

These petitions are filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.Nos.119, 1281 and 1038 of 2015 respectively on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred by their name.

3. Vaidegi got married to Jegadish on 27.01.2010 and they have no issues through the wedlock. It appears that their marriage ran into rough weather and got estranged. Vaidegi lodged a police complaint against Jegadish, based on which, a case in Crime No.5 of 2014 was registered and after completing the investigation the respondent police has filed a final report in C.C.No.1038 of 2015 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Challenging which, Jegadish has filed Crl.O.P.No.23062 of 2015. On the complaint lodged by Vaidegi, a criminal case in Crime No.805 of 2014 was registered against Santhapriya and Sankar, who are the in-laws of Vaidegi and after completing the investigation, the respondent police has filed a final report in C.C.No.1281 of 2015. Challenging which, Santhapriya and Sankar are before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.22996 of 2015. Vaidegi lodged a proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act in C.C.No.119 of 2015 against Jagadish and others. Challenging which, Jegadish and others are before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.7836 of 2015. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

4. Now it appears that the parties have arrived at a compromise. Vaidegi is present before this Court and she has filed an affidavit, wherein she has stated as follows:

2. I have received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only)
i.e., one lakh at Mediation Centre and seven lakhs at Family Court,
from the petitioners’ brother vide D.D.No.979665 dated 02.09.2015 SBI
further I have got back my sridhana articles also from the petitioner
(Jagadish/Husband). Therefore, I have no claim in any manner from
the petitioner in future. I will not initiate any type of litigation
against the petitioners in future.

3. I submit that as the matrimonial dispute amicable settled by me
and the petitioner. I am giving my consent to allow this quash
petition.

4. It is therefore respectfully prayed that his Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to take note of the above facts and record the same and allow
this quash petition.

5. Earlier Tr.C.M.P.No.408 of 2015 has been filed by Jegadesh, in
which the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre, Chennai.
Before the Mediation Centre, the parties appear to have entered into
settlement. The terms of which are as follows:

1.The petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees
eight Lakhs only) as a onetime settlement (permanent alimony) to the
respondent herein further the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to the respondent by way of cash
before the Mediation Centre, today itself and the balance amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) will be paid to the
respondent at the time of giving her consent in O.P.No.3426/13 to
grant decree of divorce at the earliest or at the time of giving
evidence in the mutual divorce petition. There shall be no further
claim whatsoever on either side.

2.The respondent herein agrees to give her consent to quash the
proceeding in C.C.No.1038/2015 & C.C.No.1181/2015 and
D.V.C.No.119/2015 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore
Court (at present at Motre Merket Buildings) which initiated based on
for complaint.

3.The respondent herein undertakes to not to prefer any compliant or
case before any judicial body or form or Court against the petitioner
or his family members.

4.The petitioner hereby agreed to return all the articles which are
in his custody which belongs to the respondent herein.

5.Both parties should scrupulously adhere to the terms and
conditions.

In view of the above, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in C.C.Nos.119, 1281 and 1038 of 2015 respectively on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai are hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.09.2015

vsm

P.N.PRAKASH, J.

vsm To V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai -8.

Crl.OP.Nos.7836, 22996 and 23062 of 2015 15.09.2015

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

Long live legal delays. Husband ordered interm maint 10K p.m. in DV, appeals & drags for 2+ yrs !

An interim maintenance meter keeps running whether or NOT the case has merits. In most cases, men are tired paying interim and ad interim maintenance even though they are dead sure of winning the main case. so it becomes imperative to find strategies to fight Interim maintenance.

In this case …..

* Wife and kids granted 10000 p.m. sometime circa 2012 / 2013 in a DV case @ Kanyakumari, TN
* Husband prefers appeal at sessions court
* For some reason husband looses appeal at sessions court (probably sessions court forced him to pay portion of the money before appeal !!)
* He goes to High court u/s 482 CrPC seeking call for and dismission of sessions court case
* Though he looses the case at the HC this shows how one can drag and delay payment for ages by appealing and reviewing !!
* Such husbands should be contacted to know IF this was a tactic or just karma and court Dharma !! 🙂

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

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 14.10.2015

CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.MALA

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5746 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2015

Ravi … Petitioner

-Vs-

1.Sreethangam
2.Rinshika rep. By her mother Sreethangam
3.Selvakani
4.Ganesan
5.Stelladevi
6.Thangaraj
7.Ponsudha
8.Vasantha
9.Raja .. Respondents

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

PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records and set aside the order of dismissal passed in C.A.No.42 of 2013 by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil dated 22.01.2015.

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

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Appadurai
For Respondents : Mr.J.John Jayakumar for R1, No Appearance for RR2 to 8

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

O R D E R

The petitioner has come forward with this application to set aside the order of dismissal passed in C.A.No.42 of 2013 by the Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil dated 22.01.2015.

2.Even though, the matter is posted for dismissal, today, the learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents 1 and 2 have preferred an application before the trial Court under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, in which, an interim order has been passed, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the respondents 1 and 2 and totally Rs.10,000/- per month, against which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in C.A.No.42 of 2013 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District and because of the no representation on behalf of the appellant, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution, against, the petitioner has come up with the criminal original petition.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the first respondent also and perused the materials available on records.

5.Admittedly, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil has not been complied with. This Court, by an order order 11.08.2015, directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). But, instead of payment of the amount, the petitioner filed M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2015 and 2 of 2015 for extention of time and modification of the condition respectively. Even today, also, he has not paid any amount. The act of the petitioner shows the malafide intention to drag on the proceedings, without paying the maintenance amount to his wife and daughter. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6.Perusal of the records would show that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, directing him to pay the interim maintenance amount. But, without paying the same, he has preferred the appeal and since he has not appeared before the appellate Court and he was not ready to get along with the appeal, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution only on 22.02.2015, after a period of two years. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below. Further, I do not find any reason to extend the time and to modify the order and I am of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 are also dismissed. It is left open to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner to recover the maintenance amount.

TO

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil.

2.The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

MEN Fighting maintenance & alimony: LET’s follow dharma !! Madras HC helps mothers

MEN fighting alimony, maintenance : WIfe can’t loot you, LET’s follow dharma !! Madras HC helps mothers and Indian men !!!

All males and NRI males fighting maintenance cases may please take note.

As per madras HC ( as reported in media ) It’s UR duty to maintain your mother

So, as a corollary, it would also be your duty to take care of ur father, mother, unemployed / minior brother, unmarried sisters, household expenses etc.

So, if your wife filed huge maintenance claims, you should argue that Your NET disposable income for maintenance should be REDUCED by such responsibilities / liabilities

Please note that the Hon judge has spoken of Dharma….

Let’s follow Dharma !!

**** NEWS report , SOURCE DNA ****

Please see that the NRI son was levied a higher maintenance amount EVEN without mother asking him !!!

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

Sons duty-bound to maintain mother: Madras HC

Thursday, 19 November 2015 –

10:55pm IST | Place: Madurai |

The Madras High court on Thursday said as per ‘dharma’, sons are duty-bound to maintain the mother and directed one of the sons of a woman, settled in Canada and earning Rs.three-lakh a month, to provide her Rs 15,000 a month.

Disposing of a criminal revision petition filed by the first son of the woman, Pon Devaki, Justice S Vimala of the Court’s Madurai Bench, said the "right of the mother to expect her children to maintain (her) is not only statutory right, constitutional right, fundamental right, natural and moral right but also human right." The petition challenged the order of the Madurai Family Court to pay Rs.3000 a month to his mother.

The judge said "as per "dharma", the sons are duty-bound to maintain the mother. When dharma says that sons should take care of their parents, it means duty, breach of duty is punishable," the judge said. The judge said the son should not have made his mother approach the Family Court. The first son, instead of speaking about the duties and responsibilities of a son, was talking about the duties and responsibilities of his mother.

"He has no authority to speak on that line," the judge said.

Regarding the quantum of the compensation for mother, the judge said the claim for maintenance cannot be a match for profit and loss account. "It reflects the requirement of a mother who created sons for the world. The 70-year-old mother has ailments, she would not be able to render any physical work." The sons were in possession of the houses and lands. Her daughter, who had promised to give her Rs.5000, had become a widow and she would not be able to give her money. However, she can give at least Rs.3000 for her mother who had given her a house, the judge said.

The judge said the revision petitioner, Elangovan, must pay Rs.3000 as ordered by the trial court. The judge said the second son Rajakumaran, who is in Canada, did not even take care to find out why a petition was filed by his mother. He did not even contest the proceedings. By remaining abroad, he would not be in a position to take care of the physical comforts of his mother, who had claimed a total compensation of Rs.21,000 from the three children.

Her second son should pay Rs.15,000 a month. Even though there is no claim for enhanced maintenance by the mother, she expressed her requirements in a personal hearing, the judge said.

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