Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

A.Sobana vs S.Anieeshfathima @ Fathima
2021 Latest Caselaw 13457 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 13457 Mad
Judgement Date : 7 July, 2021

Madras High Court
A.Sobana vs S.Anieeshfathima @ Fathima on 7 July, 2021
                                                                            C.R.P(MD).No.952 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. 952 of 2021 and
                                          CMP(MD).Nos.5373 & 5374 of 2021

                    1. A.Sobana

                    2.Alavudeen

                    3.K.Marikannu @ Fathima                                        ...Petitioners

                                                        Vs.


                    S.Anieeshfathima @ Fathima                                   ... Respondent

                    PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
                    Constitution of India to strike out the petition in D.V.O.P.No.20 of 2019 on
                    the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Periyakulam against the
                    petitioners.


                                   For petitioners        : Mr.S.Saravanakumar




                    1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                               C.R.P(MD).No.952 of 2021

                                                       ORDER

This Civil Revision has been filed seeking orders to strike off the

petition filed in D.V.O.P.No.20 of 2019 pending on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate Court, Periyakulam.

2. Admittedly, the respondent has married one Salim Babu, who is

the son of the third petitioner and the brother of the first petitioner and that

the petitioners are the in-laws of the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that

the respondent has not averred any specific allegation nor produced any

proof so as to maintain the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act

against the petitioners and that the complaint has been filed only to harass

the petitioners and that therefore, the complaint is liable to be struck off

from the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Periyakulam.

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P(MD).No.952 of 2021

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 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.952 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.

7. 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.

07.07.2021

Index : Yes : No Internet : Yes : No ssb

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P(MD).No.952 of 2021

To

Judicial Magistrate Court, Periyakulam.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P(MD).No.952 of 2021

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

ssb

CRP(PD)(MD).No. 952 of 2021and CMP(MD).Nos. 5373 & 5374 of 2021

07.07.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter