1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15308 of 2011 Isabella Amala ... Petitioner Vs. 1.Alex 2.Rasayya Nadar 3.Gnanaselvam 4.Saroja 5.Savarimuthu ... Respondents PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam to take the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which had been returned on 20.09.2011 on file and proceed in accordance with law. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar O R D E R This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam to take the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on file, which had been returned on 20.09.2011 and to proceed in accordance with law. 2. Heard Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. No notice is ordered since the complaint has been returned by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam before it is numbered. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that a petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam on 16.08.2011 and the said petition was returned by pointing out certain defects and the said defects were complied with. He would further submit that thereafter, a fresh petition was filed on 13.09.2011 in the prescribed Form No.II and the said petition was also returned by citing various discrepancies in facts. 4. He would further submit that the said petition filed by the petitioner under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shall be disposed of within a period of 60 days from the date of its presentation, but the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam has returned the petition on various times and thereby the period stipulated is likely to have not complied with. 5. He would further submit that the petitioner is starving with her minor child and therefore, she is invoking the provision of the Act. He would rely upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (1) CTC 225 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 (A.Vinayagam & Others Vs. Dr.Subash Chandran) and submit that the petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women and Domestic Violence act cannot be returned for want of certain rectifications. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam returned the same and the petitioner and her child, in the meanwhile, are suffering for want of maintenance and other reliefs. Therefore, he would request the Court to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam to take the petition on file and to pass suitable orders on merits. 6. On this petition, this Court has called for a report from the Magistrate concerned and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam has submitted a report on 01.12.2011. According to his report, I could see that he is trying his level best to take the cases on file as early as possible and he will obey the orders and directions of this Court. 7. On a careful perusal of the returns made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, I could see that he has returned the petition for certain clarifications and the last return on 13.09.2011 would go to show that the quantum of maintenance as asked for by the petitioner are deferring from the compensation as asked in two paragraphs and they have to be clarified. All these particulars are to be considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate during the time of enquiry and not at the stage of numbering the said petition. The learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have followed the procedure contemplated as per the judgment of this Court made in 2000 (1) CTC 225 (A.Vinayagam & Others Vs. Dr.Subash Chandran). 8. Therefore, I have no hesitation to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam to receive the returned complaint filed by the petitioner on its representation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to number the same in accordance with the procedure laid down in 2000 (1) CTC 225 (A.Vinayagam & Others Vs. Dr.Subash Chandran) and to enquire the matter and dispose of the same within a period of 60 days from the date of such representation. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is ordered. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam 2. -Do- thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15308 of 2011 07.12.2011 vsm RJ/13.12.11 (IT) 2p/3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/