Madras High Court
Preethi vs Vishwasri on 15 July, 2021
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.991 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRP(PD)(MD).No. 991 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD).Nos.5639 & 5640 of 2021
1.Preethi
2.Shankar
[email protected] Sakkaraiammal ...Petitioners / Respondents 7 to 9
Vs.
Vishwasri ... Respondent / Petitioner
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in
Cr.M.P.No.2550 of 2019, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
Additional Mahilar Court, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Rajaraman
ORDER
This Civil Revision has been filed to quash the proceedings in
Cr.M.P.No.2550 of 2019, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
Additional Mahila Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.991 of 2021
2. Admittedly, the marriage between the respondent and one
Ponrajesh was solemnized on 01.02.2017.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that
the petitioners herein are the relatives of the respondent's husband, that the
first petitioner is the wife of one Chandru, that the petitioners 2 and 3 are
the parents of the first petitioner and that the respondent by falsely alleged
that the first petitioner is the second wife of the said Ponrajesh, has filed
the complaint under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence
Act, with sole intention to harass the petitioners. He would further submit
that the statement of the Family Welfare Officer and the statements
recorded by the Police would reveal that there was no second marriage
between the first petitioner and the husband of the respondent and that the
entire complaint is imaginary, baseless and filed only for the purpose of
harassing them.
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(PD)(MD).No.991 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(PD)(MD).No.991 of 2021
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.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the
revision petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned Judicial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.991 of 2021
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 petitioner as per the guidelines referred above for the
hearings in which the personal appearance of the petitioner is not
necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions
are closed.
15.07.2021
Index : Yes : No
Internet : Yes : No
das
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Additional Mahilar Court,
Madurai.
2.The Section Officer, (VR Section)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.991 of 2021
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
das
CRP(PD)(MD).No. 991 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD).Nos.5639 & 5640 of 2021
15.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
