Madras High Court
R. Ratheesh vs S. Ananthi on 9 July, 2021
C.R.P(MD).No.962 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRP(PD)(MD).No. 962 of 2021
C.M.P(MD).Nos.5399 & 5400 of 2021
1. R. Ratheesh
2. R. Vijayakumari
3.R. Rajesh
4.Janiba
5.R. Aneesh ..Petitioners / respondents
Vs.
1. S. Ananthi
2. R.A. Rekshin
3.R.A. Akshitha
(Respondents 2 and 3 are represented
through their natural guardian and Mother
1st respondent) .. Respondents/petitioners
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to call for the records in D.V.C.No.6 of 2020 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai
For petitioners : Mr.S. Sivakumar
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.962 of 2021
ORDER
This Civil Revision has been filed to quash the proceedings in
D.V.C.No.6 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Kuzhithurai
2. Admittedly, the marriage between the first petitioner and
the first respondent was solemnized on 09.02.2015. The second petitioner
is the mother; 3rd petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner and the
fourth petitioner is the wife of the third petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would
submit that the first respondent has filed the false petition impleading the
petitioners 2 to 5, that there is no domestic relationship between them and
that the complaint is a fraudulent one and she has misused the provision of
the Domestic Violence Act.
4. No doubt, the revision petitioners, as per the judgment of
this Court rendered by Hon'ble Mr.Justice. N.Anand Venkatesh., in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.962 of 2021
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
hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the
Constitution, interfere with the proceedings or orders of Tribunals and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.962 of 2021
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. It is pertinent to mention that in the guidelines issued in the
above Judgment, 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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.962 of 2021
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.
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 are not
necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed.
09.07.2021
Index : Yes : No
Internet : Yes : No
trp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.962 of 2021
To
The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kuzhithurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.962 of 2021
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
trp
CRP(PD)(MD).No. 962 of 2021
C.M.P(MD).Nos.5399 & 5400 of 2021
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
