V.B.Viniba v. Subeer Shabu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20/01/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN V.B.Viniba ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Vs 1.Subeer Shabu ... Respondent/Petitioner/ Accused No.1 2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Marthandam, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent/Respondent For Petitioner : M/s.Ananth C.Rajesh, Advocate. For R-2 : Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

For R-1 : Mr.S.Palani Velayutham, Advocate.

PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.439(2) of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- To cancel the bail granted to the 1st respondent by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil in Cr.M.P.No.3809 of 2019, interim bail dated 06.09.2019 and bail dated 05.11.2019 within the period stipulated by this Hon'ble court. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

2. The petitioner herein Viniba has moved this Court for cancellation of bail granted to the first respondent Subeer Shabu. Since the first respondent avoided the service of notice, this Court had cancelled the bail granted to him. The first respondent was produced before me by the second respondent police. The matter was adjourned to enable the first respondent to hand over the articles and the certificates of the defacto complainant. 1/3

3. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel on either side submitted that the articles and the certificates of the defacto complainant have been handed over to her. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the defaco complainant Viniba and the first respondent Subeer Shabu took place hardly 11⁄2 years ago. There is a five months old baby. The first respondent is statutorily obliged to maintain the petitioner and the child.

4. The first respondent gives an undertaking that he would pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to Viniba as interim maintenance. Of course the defacto complainant Viniba is also at liberty to ask for higher maintenance before the concerned Court. Leaving open all the respective rights of the defacto complainant as well as the first respondent and also recording the undertaking given by the first respondent that he would pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the defacto complainant, this criminal original petition stands disposed of.

5. The first respondent's liability will commence from next month onwards. The said maintenance amount shall be deposited by the first respondent on or before 5th of every month. This is only an interim arrangement and without prejudice to the rights of the defacto complainant. This order would abide by the final order that may be passed by the jurisdictional civil Court or the family Court.

6. Since in view of the conduct of the first respondent and the undertaking now given by him, interim bail granted to the first respondent is made absolute. Since the first respondent has already executed sureties before the Court below, there is no need for him to execute fresh sureties. The petitioner's counsel shall intimate in writing the bank account details to the counsel appearing for the accused.

sd/- 20/01/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KANYAKUMARI, DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.

2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, MARTHANDAM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

2/3

3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.ANANTH C.RAJESH Advocate SR.No.970 +1. C.C. to Mr.S.PALANI VELAYUTHAM Advocate SR.No.2119

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18788 of 2019 Date :20/01/2020 PMU TK/VR/SAR.4/27.01.2020/3P/6C 3/3