High Court · 2024
Case Details
Acts & Sections
CRP.No.313 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.07.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRP.No.313 of 2024andCMP.Nos.9451, 1452 & 1455 of 20241.A.Siva @ Shanmuganatham2.Arumugam3.A.Kumari...Petitioners/respondents Vs.N.Dhatchayani ... Respondent/ petitioner. Prayer:Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , praying to struck of the proceedings in D.V.C.No.32 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level) , Chengalpattu and allow the Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioners: Ms.U.Parvatha VarthiniFor Respondent: Mr.G.Magesh KumarORDERThe petitioners, who are the respondents in D.V.C.No.32/2023 filed this revision to strike the proceedings in D.V.C.No.32/2023 which is 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024pending before the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level) in Chengalpattu.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the 1st petitioner is the divorced husband of the respondent, and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the father and mother of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent took place at Vanagaram, Tiruvallur district, on 12.09.2022; it was an arranged marriage. After one week of marriage, both the 1st petitioner and the respondent left for Dubai, where the 1st petitioner was employed. The respondent herein demanded 5,000 dinars for her monthly expenses, which the first petitioner agreed to and paid. The 1st petitioner and the respondent were staying in Dubai, and thereafter, the 1st petitioner, in exigency of his work, had to stay 400 kilometres away, and there he was staying. At that time, he paid 5,000 dinars as her monthly expenses and he used to visit the respondent on weekends. The respondent has also attended some work in Dubai, and while attending the work, she used to remove her Thali (marital status), which was objected to by the petitioner.2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 20242.1. Despite the objections of the first petitioner, the attitude of the respondent did not change. On the other hand, she had been spending the money lavishly. When the first petitioner asked for the expenses, she gave a list of expenses for 5000 dinars. When the 1st petitioner enquired about the 2000 dinars which she received as her salary, she refused to give any details, further informing that it was her own salary, which the 1st petitioner has no right to ask or inquire about what she was doing with those 2000 dinars. Hence the dispute further amplified, they got separated, and the 1st petitioner called the respondent during the weekend. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued in Dubai since both were residing there, and after the legal notice, proceedings were initiated for divorce before the Dubai Courts of First Instance, Dubai. 2.2. Although the respondent was aware of the proceedings and the notice had been duly served, she failed to participate in the proceedings before the Dubai Courts of First Instance, Dubai, and finally, on 3.08.2023, the divorce was granted between the 1st petitioner and the respondent. Suppressing the above facts, the respondent had come and filed a domestic violence complaint with the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level) in Chengalpattu on 21.08.2023. Therefore, it is 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024further submitted that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the parents of the 1st petitioner, having nothing to do with any of the disputes between the 1st petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, the respondent never shared a common roof with the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. 3. It is an admitted case of the respondent that one week after her marriage, she left for Dubai and stayed with the first petitioner in Dubai. They had some misunderstandings, and then she came back to India, and straight away she stayed at her parents house. In such circumstances, including the 2nd and 3rd petitioners is nothing but harassment just because they are the parents of the 1st petitioner, which is enough to rope in. 4. The relief sought by the respondent is for a shared household and Rs. 300,000 as a monthly maintenance amount, which she can only claim with the first petitioner and not with his parents. In respect of her contention, she had produced a copy of the judgment in Case No. 184/2023/105, Dubai Courts of First Instance, dated 03.08.2023. Further, she had produced the invoice showing the expenses of the respondent, WhatsApp messages, and screen shots shared with the advocate regarding 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024the legal notice and the medical reports, which show that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are not healthy and are under medical care. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contention of the petitioner, stating that after the marriage on 12.09.2022, the first petitioner and the respondent lived together for one week in India; after that, they left to Dubai. After reaching Dubai, the 1st petitioner started to harass and abuse the respondent, and he was visiting only on weekends. According to the respondent, his movement and relationship in Dubai were kept in misery; she was unable to know whom he was contacting and how he was spending time. Only during the weekends did he come to seek the respondent, and at that time, she had to share all of her time with him. In her employment, she was earning 2000 dinars. The first petitioner was asking about these 2000 dinars, and he wanted them to be spent on common expenses, which the respondent objected to. The first petitioner seems to be more focused on money, and not shown love and affection. The respondent is new to Dubai, and she is not aware of the procedures and workings of the legal system in Dubai. Taking advantage of the same, the first petitioner created some documents and thereafter obtained a divorce order on her back. This information she came to know only after 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024she reached India and filed the domestic violence complaint. Prior to that, the 1st petitioner never informed her about any proceedings pending before the Dubai Court of First Instance, and the learned counsel further objected to the chat messages and other things, which cannot be taken as proof in the absence of identifying from what number they originated, in what number received, whose name the mobile number was registered, and all these particulars not being produced. He fairly submitted that the WhatsApp messages pertained only to the first petitioner and the respondent.6. Consider the submissions, and on perusal of the materials and also perusal of the domestic violence complaint, it is seen that it is an admitted case that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent took place on 12.09.2022 thereafter, within a week, the 1st petitioner and the respondent had left for Dubai, and the 1st petitioner used to come and visit the respondent on the weekends, other days he was attending his work. Hence, there was some misunderstanding with regard to each of them about each of their movements in their absence. 7. It is the contention of the respondent that she was not aware of the legal proceedings initiated by the 1st petitioner, gains acceptance for 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024the reason that the 1st petitioner already in Dubai and conversant with the procedures and law in Dubai. For the first time, the respondent had gone to Dubai in the month of September 2022, and she had left Dubai and come back to India in August 2023. Cannot be expected to know the law and procedure in Dubai. The WhatsApp messages are without details from which number it originated and in what number it was received are disputed facts, necessarily to be proved in the manner known to law. Further disputed facts can be decided only during the trial. Hence, this Court is not inclined to strike of the name of the first petitioner. 8. As regards the second and third petitioners, parents of the first petitioner have nothing to do with the dispute or relationship between the first petitioner and the respondent. It is admitted by the respondent that only for one week after the marriage she was in India, and thereafter, left to Dubai, lived there with the first petitioner where she was harassed and subjected to cruelty, after coming from Dubai, she is with her parents. In the complaint, there is no specific overact against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. In view of the same, this court is inclined to strike off the proceedings as regards the second and third petitioners alone. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that she had 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024filed ECOP No. 282/2023 before the Family Court, Chengalpet, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree in her favour on 25.03.2024. This Court is not expressing any view with regard to the ex parte decree obtained by the 1st petitioner in Case No. 184/2023/105 before the Dubai Courts of First Instance, Dubai, dated 03.08.2023. and the respondent in ECOP No. 282/2023 before the Family Court, Chengalpet, dated 25.03.2024. It is for the concerned to seek remedy in the manner known to the law. 10. In view thereof, this Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The proceedings in D.V.C. No. 32 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level), Chengalpattu, as against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners alone, are struck out. The rest of the petitioner i.e., the first petitioner, shall face trial. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs.08.07.2024jrsInternet: Yes/ NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderNeutral: Yes/NoTo8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024The Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level), Chengalpattu.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024M.NIRMAL KUMAR,JjrsCRP.No.313 of 2024andCMP.Nos.1452 & 1455 of 202408.07.202410/10
CRP.No.313 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.07.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRP.No.313 of 2024andCMP.Nos.9451, 1452 & 1455 of 20241.A.Siva @ Shanmuganatham2.Arumugam3.A.Kumari...Petitioners/respondents Vs.N.Dhatchayani ... Respondent/ petitioner. Prayer:Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , praying to struck of the proceedings in D.V.C.No.32 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level) , Chengalpattu and allow the Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioners: Ms.U.Parvatha VarthiniFor Respondent: Mr.G.Magesh KumarORDERThe petitioners, who are the respondents in D.V.C.No.32/2023 filed this revision to strike the proceedings in D.V.C.No.32/2023 which is 1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024pending before the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level) in Chengalpattu.2. The contention of the petitioner is that the 1st petitioner is the divorced husband of the respondent, and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the father and mother of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent took place at Vanagaram, Tiruvallur district, on 12.09.2022; it was an arranged marriage. After one week of marriage, both the 1st petitioner and the respondent left for Dubai, where the 1st petitioner was employed. The respondent herein demanded 5,000 dinars for her monthly expenses, which the first petitioner agreed to and paid. The 1st petitioner and the respondent were staying in Dubai, and thereafter, the 1st petitioner, in exigency of his work, had to stay 400 kilometres away, and there he was staying. At that time, he paid 5,000 dinars as her monthly expenses and he used to visit the respondent on weekends. The respondent has also attended some work in Dubai, and while attending the work, she used to remove her Thali (marital status), which was objected to by the petitioner.2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 20242.1. Despite the objections of the first petitioner, the attitude of the respondent did not change. On the other hand, she had been spending the money lavishly. When the first petitioner asked for the expenses, she gave a list of expenses for 5000 dinars. When the 1st petitioner enquired about the 2000 dinars which she received as her salary, she refused to give any details, further informing that it was her own salary, which the 1st petitioner has no right to ask or inquire about what she was doing with those 2000 dinars. Hence the dispute further amplified, they got separated, and the 1st petitioner called the respondent during the weekend. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued in Dubai since both were residing there, and after the legal notice, proceedings were initiated for divorce before the Dubai Courts of First Instance, Dubai. 2.2. Although the respondent was aware of the proceedings and the notice had been duly served, she failed to participate in the proceedings before the Dubai Courts of First Instance, Dubai, and finally, on 3.08.2023, the divorce was granted between the 1st petitioner and the respondent. Suppressing the above facts, the respondent had come and filed a domestic violence complaint with the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level) in Chengalpattu on 21.08.2023. Therefore, it is 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024further submitted that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the parents of the 1st petitioner, having nothing to do with any of the disputes between the 1st petitioner and the respondent. Therefore, the respondent never shared a common roof with the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. 3. It is an admitted case of the respondent that one week after her marriage, she left for Dubai and stayed with the first petitioner in Dubai. They had some misunderstandings, and then she came back to India, and straight away she stayed at her parents house. In such circumstances, including the 2nd and 3rd petitioners is nothing but harassment just because they are the parents of the 1st petitioner, which is enough to rope in. 4. The relief sought by the respondent is for a shared household and Rs. 300,000 as a monthly maintenance amount, which she can only claim with the first petitioner and not with his parents. In respect of her contention, she had produced a copy of the judgment in Case No. 184/2023/105, Dubai Courts of First Instance, dated 03.08.2023. Further, she had produced the invoice showing the expenses of the respondent, WhatsApp messages, and screen shots shared with the advocate regarding 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024the legal notice and the medical reports, which show that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are not healthy and are under medical care. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contention of the petitioner, stating that after the marriage on 12.09.2022, the first petitioner and the respondent lived together for one week in India; after that, they left to Dubai. After reaching Dubai, the 1st petitioner started to harass and abuse the respondent, and he was visiting only on weekends. According to the respondent, his movement and relationship in Dubai were kept in misery; she was unable to know whom he was contacting and how he was spending time. Only during the weekends did he come to seek the respondent, and at that time, she had to share all of her time with him. In her employment, she was earning 2000 dinars. The first petitioner was asking about these 2000 dinars, and he wanted them to be spent on common expenses, which the respondent objected to. The first petitioner seems to be more focused on money, and not shown love and affection. The respondent is new to Dubai, and she is not aware of the procedures and workings of the legal system in Dubai. Taking advantage of the same, the first petitioner created some documents and thereafter obtained a divorce order on her back. This information she came to know only after 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024she reached India and filed the domestic violence complaint. Prior to that, the 1st petitioner never informed her about any proceedings pending before the Dubai Court of First Instance, and the learned counsel further objected to the chat messages and other things, which cannot be taken as proof in the absence of identifying from what number they originated, in what number received, whose name the mobile number was registered, and all these particulars not being produced. He fairly submitted that the WhatsApp messages pertained only to the first petitioner and the respondent.6. Consider the submissions, and on perusal of the materials and also perusal of the domestic violence complaint, it is seen that it is an admitted case that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent took place on 12.09.2022 thereafter, within a week, the 1st petitioner and the respondent had left for Dubai, and the 1st petitioner used to come and visit the respondent on the weekends, other days he was attending his work. Hence, there was some misunderstanding with regard to each of them about each of their movements in their absence. 7. It is the contention of the respondent that she was not aware of the legal proceedings initiated by the 1st petitioner, gains acceptance for 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024the reason that the 1st petitioner already in Dubai and conversant with the procedures and law in Dubai. For the first time, the respondent had gone to Dubai in the month of September 2022, and she had left Dubai and come back to India in August 2023. Cannot be expected to know the law and procedure in Dubai. The WhatsApp messages are without details from which number it originated and in what number it was received are disputed facts, necessarily to be proved in the manner known to law. Further disputed facts can be decided only during the trial. Hence, this Court is not inclined to strike of the name of the first petitioner. 8. As regards the second and third petitioners, parents of the first petitioner have nothing to do with the dispute or relationship between the first petitioner and the respondent. It is admitted by the respondent that only for one week after the marriage she was in India, and thereafter, left to Dubai, lived there with the first petitioner where she was harassed and subjected to cruelty, after coming from Dubai, she is with her parents. In the complaint, there is no specific overact against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. In view of the same, this court is inclined to strike off the proceedings as regards the second and third petitioners alone. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that she had 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024filed ECOP No. 282/2023 before the Family Court, Chengalpet, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and obtained a decree in her favour on 25.03.2024. This Court is not expressing any view with regard to the ex parte decree obtained by the 1st petitioner in Case No. 184/2023/105 before the Dubai Courts of First Instance, Dubai, dated 03.08.2023. and the respondent in ECOP No. 282/2023 before the Family Court, Chengalpet, dated 25.03.2024. It is for the concerned to seek remedy in the manner known to the law. 10. In view thereof, this Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The proceedings in D.V.C. No. 32 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level), Chengalpattu, as against the 2nd and 3rd petitioners alone, are struck out. The rest of the petitioner i.e., the first petitioner, shall face trial. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. No costs.08.07.2024jrsInternet: Yes/ NoSpeaking Order/Non-Speaking OrderNeutral: Yes/NoTo8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024The Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level), Chengalpattu.9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.No.313 of 2024M.NIRMAL KUMAR,JjrsCRP.No.313 of 2024andCMP.Nos.1452 & 1455 of 202408.07.202410/10