Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 10 To July 16

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 192 To 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 198

NOMINAL INDEX

Loyola Selva Kumar v Sharon Nisha, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 192

Kajendran v Superintendent of Police and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 193

M Mathi Murugan v The Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department and others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 194

Sv. Rm. Ramanathan and Others v State and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 195

M Rajendran and Others v The Secretary to Government and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 196

S. Ve. Shekher v Al. Gopalsamy and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 197

Megala v State, 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 198

REPORTS

'Wife' Entitled To Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Even If Marriage Was Not Legal: Madras High Court

Case Title: Loyola Selva Kumar v Sharon Nisha

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 192

The Madras High Court recently held that even if a marriage was not legal due to the existence of a first marriage, the second wife and the children born out of the second marriage will be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice K Murali Shankar of the Madurai bench was dealing with a revision petition seeking review of an order passed by Family Court, Tirunelveli directing a man to pay a monthly maintenance of ten thousand rupees to his "wife" and their son and to pay the entire arrears of maintenance amount within a month.

Come Up With SOP For Conducting Potency Test By Collecting Blood Sample, Mechanism Of Collecting Sperm Is A Method Of Past: Madras High Court

Case Title: Kajendran v Superintendent of Police and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 193

Noting that the Potency Test in cases involving sexual offences are still being conducted by collecting sperm from the offender, the Madras High Court has directed the authorities to come up with a standard operating procedure for conducting potency tests using blood samples.

The division bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sundar Mohan said its wants to ensure that the Two-Finger Test and the Archaic Potency Test are discontinued.

The bench was constituted to monitor the implementation of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Act on the judicial side.

ALSO READ: Identify Cases Involving Consensual Relationship Of Minors, Will Consider Quashing Them If Against Their Interest, Future: Madras High Court To Police

Court Can't Be A Mute Spectator & Permit Perpetuation Of Untouchability: Madras High Court On Denial Of Temple Entry To SC Community Members

Case Title: M Mathi Murugan v The Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department and others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 194

Lamenting that even after 75 years of Independence, there are instances of denial of temple entry to persons belonging to a particular community, the Madras High Court said that it can not be a mute spectator and allow such instances to continue.

Justice PT Asha of the Madurai bench said such instances of denial of entry to the temple even after 75 years of independence should make us hang our heads in shame.

The court added that if necessary, considering the ground situation and disturbance to public order, the police authorities would be at liberty to invoke the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest-Offender, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982.

Madras High Court Quashes COTPA Proceedings Filed Against Actor Dhanush For Film Poster Showing Him Smoking Cigarette

Case Title: Sv. Rm. Ramanathan and Others v State and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 195

The Madras High Court on Monday quashed criminal proceedings under Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, initiated against Actor Dhanush, Director Aishwarya Rajnikanth and others by one Cyril Alexander for showing the actor smoking a cigarette in the posters of the movie “Velaiyilla Pattathari”.

Justice Anand Venkatesh said the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused persons will amount to an abuse of process of court.

Corruption In India Pervades All Levels, Not Even Sparing IAS, IPS and Judicial Service: Madras High Court

Case Title: M Rajendran and Others v The Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 196

While making critical remarks against corrupt practices prevalent among all levels of society, the Madras High Court noted that in present-day India,

Justice SM Subramaniam noted that corruption is a disease that eats into the cultural, political, and economic fabric of the society and destroys the functioning of vital organs. He added that corruption was not only found in illegalities but also to facilitate legal transactions. He noted that large scale corruption existed in Government and Police Departments and Higher Authorities are expected to be sensitive in the matter of corruption allegations.

ALSO READ: Verify Assets Declared By Police Officers, Confiscate Illegally Accumulated Wealth In Case Of Discrepancy: Madras High Court To State

Person Forwarding Social Media Message Liable For Its Contents : Madras High Court Refuses To Quash Criminal Cases Against S.Ve Shekhar

Case Title: S. Ve. Shekher v Al. Gopalsamy and Others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 197

The Madras High Court has recently refused to quash batch of criminal proceedings initiated against actor and BJP politician S.Ve Sheker for his derogatory remarks against women journalists. The cases were registered after Sheker had forwarded an abusive, derogatory and vulgar comment on his Facebook account in April 2018.

Justice Anand Venkatesh noted that Shekher was a person of high stature with many followers and he ought to have exercised more caution while forwarding messages.

The court added that we live in an era where social media has virtually taken over every individual’s life where each message can reach the nook and corner of the world in no time. The court added that we were no suffering from “virtual diarrhoea” where we were bombarded with messages. Thus, the court added that every person must exercise social responsibility while creating or forwarding a message.

Madras High Court Upholds ED's Right To Take TN Minister Senthil Balaji Into Custody; Says 'If ED Can Arrest,They Can Seek Custody Too'

Case Title: Megala v State

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 198

Settling conflicting views regarding the power of the Enforcement Directorate to seek police custody of the accused, the Madras High Court ruled that the central agency was entitled to seek the custody of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji in the money laundering case over the alleged cash-for-jobs scam.

Justice CV Karthikeyan, the third judge to whom the matter was referred to following a split in the division bench of Justices Nisha Banu and Bharatha Chakravarthy, ruled in favour of the ED.

Deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by Balaji's wife Megala, Justice Banu had held that Enforcement Directorate is not entrusted with the powers to seek police custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Differing from this opinion, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy had held that the Habeas Corpus Petition is not maintainable and the ED was entitled to police custody of the accused.

Now, Justice Karthikeyan has endorsed the view of Justice Chakravarthy by saying : "The fact that respondents(ED) can take custody for further investigation cannot be denied. The respondent, in this case, had a right to get custody. I would align my opinion with the reason given by Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy in this aspect".

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

State Can't Abolish Distinction Between 'Game Of Skill' & 'Game Of Chance': Online Gaming Companies Argue Before Madras High Court

Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v State of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: WP 13203 of 2023

While challenging the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation Of Online Games Act 2022, the online gaming companies argued that there was a watershed distinction between a game of skill and a game of chance. It was submitted that this watershed distinction could not be abolished by a deeming function of the state. It was also submitted that the state was trying to do something which was not legally permissible to do. He added that Games of skill were per se a distinct class that was differentiated from a game of chance and this distinction had existed for more than 100 years.

The gaming companies were making submissions before the bench of Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu. The bench had earlier refused interim relief to the companies.