Sunita Surana v. Dinesh Kumar Surana

ORDER This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.07.2015 passed in Crl.R.P. No.14 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Session Judge, Tiruvallur, whereby the order of the Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No. 5999 of 2013 in D.V.No.23 of 2013 was modified.

¶2The petitioner is the wife of one Bharat Kumar Surana and the respondents are his family members. The petitioner filed a complaint in D.V.No.23 of 2013 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking various reliefs. While pending said complaint, the petitioner also filed an interim application in C.M.P.No. 5999 of 2013 seeking certain directions. Upon enquiry, the Trial Court issued the following directions: Page2 of 6 "1. The respondents are prevented from committing any kind of Domestic Violence either directly or indirectly to the petitioner and her daughter.

¶2The respondents are directed to provide kitchen to the petitioner, petitioner's husband, and their daughter in the house at No.9 & 10 Sivanandam Colony, Korattur, Chennai - 600 085.

¶3The respondents hereby directed to remove the CCTV Camera which have been fixed infront of the room wherein the petitioner, her husband, their daughter are residing.

¶4The respondents shall not prevent the petitioner from obtaining cable connection in her expenditure.

¶5The parents and brothers of the petitioner's husband are collectively directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the petitioner and her daughter for their maintenance till the disposal of case in D.V No.23/2013.

¶6The respondents are directed to provide a duplicate key for the main gate lock; accordingly the above interim order is passed in favour of the petitioner." Aggrieved by the said directions, the respondents herein filed revision in Crl.R.P. No.14 of 2014 before the Principal Session Judge, Tiruvallur.

¶3The Revisional Court, by its order dated 15.07.2014, modified the third direction to the effect that if any CCTV Camera installed for security purposes that cannot transgress into the privacy of the petitioner herein, her husband and daughter. Subject to such restriction, the respondents were permitted to install Page3 of 6 CCTV Cameras. Insofar as, the directions 1 and 4 are concerned, they are confirmed and the directions 2, 5 and 6 were set aside. Aggrieved by the said modification, the present petition has been filed.

¶4The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner should be provided with a kitchen as directed by the Trial Court under direction No.2, as she is residing under the same roof of the respondents and is presently purchasing the food from outside.

¶5On perusal of records, it is seen that the petitioner, her husband and daughter are residing together. Even then the Trial Court ordered maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner. Further, her husband or daughter did not come forward with any allegation to the effect that they were not provided with any basic amenities in the joint family property. 6 According to the petitioner, she along with her husband and daughter, is residing with the respondents under the same roof in the joint family property. If the petitioner, her husband and daughter were not provided any share in the family property, they have to approach the Family Court for appropriate relief. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the Revisional Court has rightly modified the order passed by the Trial Court. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Revisional Court. Accordingly, Page4 of 6 this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the complaint in DV.No.23 of 2013 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order PVS To

¶1The Principal Session Judge, Tiruvallur

¶2The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur Page5 of 6 CRLoOPoNo.o29780oofo2015 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,oJ. PVS CRLoOPoNo.o29780oofo2015 18-03-2026 Page6oofo6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Sunita Surana ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1.Dinesh Kumar Surana 2.Ramesh Kumar Surana 3.Leela Surana 4.Susheela Surana 5.Abhishek Surana 6.Abhijeet Surana 7.Ishan Bant 8.Milap Chand Surana 9.Kanchan Devi Surana 10.Suresh Kumar Surana 11.Pushpa Devi Surana 12.Praveen Surana 13.Pankaj Surana 14.Late Surana ..Respondent(s) Page1 of 6 Crl.OP. Filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the order of the Principal Session Judge, Tiruvallur in Crl.R.P. No.14/2014, dated 15.07.2015 and restore the order passed the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur in Crl.M.P.no. 5999/2013 in D.V. No. 23/2013 dated 02.05.2014. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Ramachandran For Respondent(s): R1, 4, 6 to 14 – Not ready in notice R2, 3, 5 - Notice served