Madras High Court
K.Marichammy vs M.Pandeeswari on 4 August, 2021
CRP PD(MD).No.918 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRP PD(MD).No.918 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5181 of 2021
1.K.Marichammy
2.K.Pandiyammal
3.K.Indhira
4.M.Selvi
5.B.Panchavarnam : Petitioners/Respondents
Vs.
M.Pandeeswari : Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.14
of 2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur and strike off
the same as illegal and unconstitutional.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Prabhu,
for Mr.S.Balamurugan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP PD(MD).No.918 of 2021
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking orders to strike off
the proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.14 of 2019, on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Melur.
2.Admittedly, the marriage between the first petitioner and the
respondent was solemnized on 13.09.2007. It is not in dispute that the first
petitioner is the maternal uncle of the respondent that the mother of the
respondent is the elder sister of the first petitioner and rest of the
petitioners are also the sisters of the respondent's mother. Since the first
petitioner's parents expired in early age, the mother of the respondent has
arranged the marriage between them.
3.It is also not in dispute that the respondent has filed a petition in
H.M.O.P.No.338 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Melur, claiming divorce,
that the first petitioner has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.27 of 2017 on the
file of the Sub Court, Aruppukkottai for restitution of conjugal rights and
that recently divorce petition was allowed and thereby granting divorce.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP PD(MD).No.918 of 2021
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that
despite granting of divorce, the first respondent has purposely initiated the
proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
with sole intention to harass the petitioners, that the petitioners have never
committed any domestic violence against the respondent, that the
respondent herself has admitted that she is living separately for more than
two years and as such the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained
the complaint and that therefore, the proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.14 of 2019
on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, is to be quashed.
5.No doubt, the petitioners, as per the judgment of this Court
rendered by Hon'ble Mr.Justice.N.Anand Venkatesh., in Crl.O.P.Nos.
28458, 16411, 33643 of 2019 (Batch), have filed the revision, by invoking
the jurisdiction of this Court in Article 227 of Constitution of India. In the
said judgment, Hon'ble Judge has laid down certain guidelines and
procedures to be followed /complied with by the litigant and the Court,
while dealing with the complaint initiated under the Domestic Violence Act.
6.In the present case, the petitioners have not approached the learned
Magistrate as per the guidelines issued, but they have straightaway
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP PD(MD).No.918 of 2021
approached this Court hurriedly. It is pertinent to note that when there has
been a patent perversity in the orders of the Tribunals and Courts or where
there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles
of natural justice have been flouted, High Court can interfere in exercise of
its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7.It is settled law that the High Court cannot, at the drop of a hat, in
exercise of its power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the
Constitution, interfere with the proceedings or orders of Tribunals and
Courts nor can it act as a Court of appeal. The existence of alternative mode
of redressal would operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the
High Court. To put it in short, the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly
exercised. In the case on hand, assuming for a moment, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the trial Court, it cannot be
said that the same would result in miscarriage of justice. Considering the
above, this Court is not inclined to admit the Revision.
8. It is pertinent to mention that in the guidelines issued in the above
Judgment, it has been specifically observed that personal appearance of the
petitioners shall not be ordinarily insisted upon, if the parties are effectively
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP PD(MD).No.918 of 2021
represented through counsel and that Form VII of Domestic Violence Act,
2006, makes it clear that the parties can appear before the Magistrate either
in person or through duly authorised counsel. Moreover, even if the
petitioners fail to appear either in person or through their counsel, the
Magistrate can proceed only to set ex-parte and then, proceed to decide the
application. Considering the above, it is clear that it is not mandatory for
the revision petitioners to appear personally for all the hearings.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the
revision petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned Judicial
Magistrate, as per the guidelines issued in the Judgment above referred.
Further, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed not to insist the personal
appearance of the petitioners as per the guidelines referred above for the
hearings in which the personal appearance of the petitioners is not
necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
04.08.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
das
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP PD(MD).No.918 of 2021
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
das
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur.
2.The Section Officer (VR Section)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the
order may be utilized for official purposes,
but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
CRP PD(MD).No.918 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.5181 of 2021
04.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
