Madras High Court
Muthulakshmi vs Arumugaselvi on 2 July, 2021
C.R.P(MD).No.932 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 02.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRP(PD)(MD).No. 932 of 2021 and
CMP(MD).Nos. 5258 and 5280 of 2021
1.Muthulakshmi
2.Subbulakshmi
3.Rajarathinam :Petitioners / respondents 2 to 4
Vs.
Arumugaselvi : Respondent / complainant
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the order proceedings in DVC.No. 1 of 2020
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottah, Tenaksi District.
For petitioners : Mr. V. Illanchezian
ORDER
This Civil Revision has been filed to quash the proceedings in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.932 of 2021
D.V.C.No.1 of 2020 on the file of the file of the Judicial Magistrate,
Shenkottah, Tenaksi District.
2. Admittedly, the respondent is the wife of one Sakthivel,
son of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is the aunt of the said
Sakthivel and the third petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. It
is not in dispute that the marriage between the respondent and the said
Sakthivel was solemnized on 24.03.2019.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would
submit that the respondent and her husband were living at Coimbatore, that
the petitioners 2 and 3 are residing at Melmaruvathur, Cheyyur Taluk, that
the respondent is now living at Vadakari, Shenkottah, Tenaksi District, that
the petitioners have no connection whatever with the matrimonial issues
allegedly existed between the respondent and her husband, that no specific
allegations are levelled against the petitioners, that the learned Magistrate
has taken cognizance of the complaint against the petitioners erroneously
and that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are illegal the
same are liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.932 of 2021
4. No doubt, the revision 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), dated 18.01.2021 have
filed the present revision invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Judge has laid down certain guidelines and procedures to be followed /
complied with by the litigants and the Court, while dealing with the
complaint initiated under the Domestic Violence Act.
5. In the present case, the petitioners have not approached the
learned Magistrate as per the guidelines issued, but they have straightaway
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.
6. It is settled law that the High Court cannot, at the drop of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.932 of 2021
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, even assuming for a moment, if
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.
7. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is aged 61 years
living at Coimbatore, that the petitioners 2 and 3 are living at
Melmaruvathur and that therefore, personal appearance of the petitioners
before the trial Court may be dispensed with.
8. It is pertinent to mention that in the guidelines issued, it has
been specifically observed that personal appearance of the respondent shall
not be ordinarily insisted upon, if the parties are effectively represented
through counsel and that Form VII of Domestic Violence Act, 2006, makes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.932 of 2021
it clear that the parties can appear before the Magistrate either in person or
through duly authorised counsel. Moreover, even if the respondent has
failed to appear either in person or through his 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
harassing in which the personal appearance of the petitioners is not
necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
02.07.2021
Index : Yes : No
Internet : Yes : No
trp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.932 of 2021
To
The the Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottah, Tenaksi District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.932 of 2021
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
trp
CRP(PD)(MD).No. 932 of 2021 and
CMP(MD).Nos. 5258 and 5280 of 2021
02.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.932 of 2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
