Swetha Bathu v. Tamil Nadu State Women's Commission

This was challenged on the ground that the Women's Commission has no jurisdiction to stay any criminal proceeding.2. Earlier, when the case was taken up, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil State Women's Commission, while submitted that the Commission may not have power to stay a criminal proceeding, but taking into consideration the fact that this was an internal dispute of a family in which criminal case lodged by thedaughter-in-law (petitioner herein) against the mother-in-law (4threspondent herein) and husband of the petitioner (5th respondent herein), the Commission thought to discuss the matter with the parties to settle the dispute. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the counselfor the 4th and 5th respondent both suggested to take up the matterin the chamber to ensure some amicable settlement between the parties. The matter was discussed individually with the petitioner, Swetha Bathu (wife of the 5th respondent and daughter-in-law of the 4th respondent), her parents as also the 4threspondent (mother-in-law of the petitioner) and 5th respondent(husband of the petitioner).

It was brought to the notice of the Court that apart from a divorce petition filed by 5th respondent in the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode, number of criminal cases and complaints have been filed by either parties. This Courtplayed the role of a mediator and pointed out the advantage and disadvantages of one or other case and allowed the parties to decide their course of action without giving any suggestion to either of them. After discussing the matter, the parties suggested for the following consent order :-ï) The divorce case H.M.O.P. No.152/08 filed by theMr.Sadasivam Naveen Senthooran shall be treated as a petition u/s13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, i.e., divorce by mutual consent. Ms.Swetha Bathu will be shown therein as the 2ndpetitioner and put her signature in the said divorce petition.ii) All the allegations made in the divorce petition or written statement, if any, filed by the parties against each othershall stand recalled.iii) The Court will record their statement that there is no scope for reunion of both the petitioners (Mr.Sadasivam NaveenSenthooran and Ms.Swetha Bathu) and, therefore, they have preferred the joint petition for divorce by mutual consent for dissolution of marriage between them on 31st Oct., 2004 and it has become impossible to reconcile their differences and that they are unable to live together as men and wife and that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.iv) Mr.Sadasivam Naveen Senthooran undertakes to pay a lumpsumamount of Rs.3,00,000/= (Rupees Three Lakhs only) for the maintenance of Ms.Swetha Bathu, who will be the 2nd petitioner in the petition u/s 13-B. No separate interim or final alimony shall be paid except the aforesaid lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/=(Rupees Three Lakhs only). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ v) Both the parties, Ms.Swetha Bathu and Mr.Sadasivam NaveenSenthooran exchanged their articles and there is no claim against each other in any form in future.vi) The Court will be requested to pass a judgment and decreein terms with such agreement.vii) So far as the criminal and other complaints are concerned, the parties agree to file application before the competent court, police station and authorities to recall theirrespective applications and allegations.

This includes CrimeNo.5/08 preferred by Ms.Swetha Bathu pending before the All WomensPolice Station, Guindy and the complaint filed by the flat owners association and any other such case. In such case the concernedcourt/ police station/authority will pass order closing the caseand/or applications. However, details of all the cases are not given herein, but liberty is given to the parties to bring to the notice of the competent authority/police station/court about any of the cases instituted or pending at the instance of the petitioner or the 4th and 5th respondent or their relations. In such case also, the concerned court/police station/authority will close those matters. 3. The aforesaid agreement reached between the parties have been read over by the parties, who have also made an endorsement to the said effect in the petition. Accordingly, the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode, where theH.M.O.P. No.152/08 is pending, is directed to convert the petitionas a petition u/s 13-B and after impleading the petitioner, Ms.Swetha Bathu, as the 2nd petitioner of the said case will pass judgment and decree in terms with the agreement aforesaid.