Matrimonial offences can invite fresh causes of action and the withdrawal of earlier proceedings should not hinder one from moving a fresh one, the Madras High Court has held refusing to quash a criminal petition moved by a woman against her husband despite her withdrawing a similar petition earlier.
Chennai:
Jeenath Begam, who married Samsudeen in 1992, had petitioned that after her first delivery in 1995 she was subjected to extreme cruelty and was left in the lurch by inlaws without giving anything. Hence, notwithstanding the earlier compromise, she initiated proceedings in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi in 2015, claiming various reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against Samsudeen, his mother Ramzan Bee and three others.
Following this, the accused moved a plea seeking to quash the proceedings, based on Jeenath Begam withdrawing an earlier petition for the same relief upon a compromise.
Partly allowing the quash petition, Justice PN Prakash said: “Complaint by Jeenath Begam makes specific allegations against her husband Samsudeen and mother-in-law Ramzan Bee. However, the allegations against others viz., Muhamuddhabi, Sabirabi and Liyakath Ali, are indeed very frail.” The judge then quashed the proceedings in respect of the three of them.
Also accounting for the submission that after thrown out of matrimonial home, Jeenath Begam has been living in her natal home in Perambalur with no means for survival, Justice Prakash transferred the case from Kallakurichi to Perambalur Judicial Magistrate court and directed free legal aid to her.
![Justices M.M. Sundresh and Krishnan Ramasamy issued the direction while disposing of an appeal preferred by National Insurance Company challenging an award of ₹1.93 crore to the family members of an engineer who died in a road accident after a bus dashed hit his car on July 6, 2012. [2/19, 07:37] Sekarreporter: Incongruous evidence The judges pointed out that though the claimants themselves had stated that the income of the deceased was only ₹1 lakh a month, the presiding officer had ended up determining the income to be ₹1.25 lakh per month despite no acceptable evidence having been produced to substantiate the income during his lifetime.](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
