Madras High Court
S.Saktheeshkumar vs S.Kalaiselvi on 7 July, 2021
C.R.P(MD).No.948 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRP(PD)(MD).No. 948 of 2021and
CMP(MD).No.5356 of 2021
1. S.Saktheeshkumar
2.Jayalakshmi
3.R.Sundaram ...Petitioners
Vs.
S.Kalaiselvi ... Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to strike off the Domestic Violence
Application/Petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in D.V.O.P.No.04 of 2020 on the file of
the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham, Dindigul
District and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For petitioners : Mr.J.Pandi Durai
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.948 of 2021
ORDER
This Civil Revision has been filed seeking orders to strike off
the petition filed in D.V.O.P.No.04 of 2020 pending on the file of the
District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham, Dindigul District.
2. Admittedly, the marriage between the first petitioner and the
respondent was solemnized on 10.04.2019 and that the second petitioner is
the mother and the third petitioner is the father of the first petitioner. It is
not in dispute that the respondent has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.236 of
2020 on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul for restitution of conjugal
rights and the same is pending.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that
the respondent has suppressed the factum of conversion to Christian
religion before the marriage and that therefore the marriage itself is null
and void as the same is in contravention of the conditions contemplated
under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. But, it is pertinent to mention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.948 of 2021
that the first petitioner has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.128 of 2020 on
the file of the Family Court, Dindigul against the respondent claiming
divorce under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and that the same
is also pending.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
further submit that during the pendency of the petition for divorce filed by
the first petitioner and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by
the respondent, the respondent has filed a complaint under the Domestic
Violence Act with malafide intention and only to harass the petitioners and
to wreck vengeance upon the petitioners and that he has filed the false
complaint with cooked up stories and that therefore the complaint filed
under the Domestic Violence Act is to be struck off from the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Natham.
5. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.948 of 2021
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.
6. 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.948 of 2021
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, 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.
8. 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.
No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.07.2021
Index : Yes : No
Internet : Yes : No
ssb
To
The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Natham, Dindigul
District .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.948 of 2021
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
ssb
CRP(PD)(MD).No. 948 of 2021and
07.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
