Vimala v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 17.08.2022 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM Vimala

...Petitioner

vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station, Madurai District.

...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to take appropriate action based on the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2022 and 14.06.2022. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate(Crl.Side) 1/5

O R D E R

This writ petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action based on the petitioner's representation dated 22.04.2022 and 14.06.2022.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent police has not taken any action on the representation of the petitioner dated 22.04.2022 and 14.06.2022. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition.

3.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the petitioner is the daughter of one Manoharan, through his second wife. He died due to some disease. The proposed accused namely Jeyaseelan is the son of the said Manoharan through his first wife. The deceased Manoharan left his first wife and got divorce in the year 1985 itself. Thereafter, he lived with his second wife. Now, the said Jeyaseelan is living at Singapore. The complaint given as against the Jeyaseelan is that as of now, he is not maintaining the family of the petitioner. 2/5

4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police.

5. On perusal of the representation given by the petitioner to the respondent police, it is seen that one Manoharan married Karuppayee and they had one son namely Jeyaseelan and one daughter namely Priya, who are aged about 42 and 40 respectively. In the year 1985, the said Manoharan divorced his first wife Karuppayee and thereafter, he lived with the petitioner's mother from 10.02.1995 and they had two children. Now, Jeyaseelan is at Singapore and he is earning a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- per month. After the death of Manoharan, this petitioner and her mother are living only with the pension amount. Hence, she filed the petition to take action against the said Jeyaseelan. I find no merit in this writ petition and the allegation prima facie did not disclose any offence committed by Jeyaseelan.

6.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No cost. 17.08.2022 3/5

Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/ No To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station, Madurai District.

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

4/5

V.SIVAGNANAM, J cp 17.08.2022 5/5