Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

S.Chandrasekaran vs S. Suriya Kala
2021 Latest Caselaw 13951 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 13951 Mad
Judgement Date : 13 July, 2021

Madras High Court
S.Chandrasekaran vs S. Suriya Kala on 13 July, 2021
                                                                              C.R.P(MD).No.973 of 2021

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     DATED : 13.07.2021

                                                           CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

                                             CRP(PD)(MD).No. 973 of 2021
                                             C.M.P(MD).Nos.5521 of 2021

                    1.S.Chandrasekaran
                    2.S.Padma Sankar
                    3. Selva Karthika                                             ...Petitioners

                                                            Vs.


                    1.S. Suriya Kala
                    2.Minor. Arjun Krishna
                    (Minor rep. by respondent)                                 ... Respondent




                    PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
                    Constitution of India, to call for the entire records pertaining to the
                    impugned proceedings filed by the respondent No.1 in DV.No.26 of 2021
                    in so far as the petitioners, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III,
                    Tuticorin District and set aside the same.


                                   For petitioners            : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy



                    1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                             C.R.P(MD).No.973 of 2021

                                                     ORDER

This Civil Revision has been filed to quash the proceedings in

D.V.C.No.26 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate

No.III, Tuticorin District.

2. Admittedly, the marriage between the first respondent and

one Subramaniyan, son of the petitioners 1 and 2 was solemnized on

21.08.2016.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would

submit that the first respondent was not living in the shared household and

as such, the proceedings against the petitioners are not sustainable, that the

first respondent has lodged the complaint with vague and false allegations,

with an intention to harass the petitioners and that the impugned

proceedings against the petitioners are clear abuse of process of law.

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.973 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.973 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. 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.

13.07.2021

Index : Yes : No Internet : Yes : No trp

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P(MD).No.973 of 2021

To

The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tuticorin District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P(MD).No.973 of 2021

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

trp

CRP(PD)(MD).No. 973 of 2021 C.M.P(MD).Nos.5521 of 2021

13.07.2021

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