Madras High Court
Narayanan vs M.Y. Jeyalakshmi on 30 June, 2021
C.R.P(MD).No.923 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRP(PD)(MD).No. 923 of 2021and
CMP(MD).No. 5219 of 2021
1. Narayanan
2. Kasthuri :Petitioners/respondents 2 & 3
Vs.
M.Y. Jeyalakshmi : Respondent / petitioner
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to call for the records of the complaint in DVC.No.7
of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Devakottai,
Sivagangai District.
For petitioners : Mr. R. M. Arun Swaminathan
ORDER
This Civil Revision has been filed seeking orders to quash the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.923 of 2021
proceedings in DVC.No.7 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
2. Admittedly, the respondent is the wife of one Annamalai,
the son of the revision petitioners herein.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would
submit that the respondent without any valid reason has filed the
complaint in DVC.No. 7 of 2021, to harass the petitioners with an ulterior
motive in order to take revenge, that the petitioners are unable to do their
work with free of mind due to the said litigation, that the respondent has
not filed any prima facie materials against the petitioners for taking action
under the Domestic Violence Act and that therefore, the petitioners were
constrained to file the above revision for setting aside the complaint.
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
filed the present revision invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.923 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.
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.923 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. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioners would submit that petitioners are Senior citizens aged
about 70 years, that the second petitioner has fell down recently and
suffered injury in her Spinal cord, that she has been taking treatment at
Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital, that the second petitioner is not in a
position to travel to Devakottai and attend the Court proceedings and that
therefore, personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court may
be dispensed with.
8. It is pertinent to mention that in the guidelines issued, 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, that Form VII of Domestic Violence Rules, 2006, makes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.923 of 2021
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 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.
9. 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.
30.06.2021
Index : Yes : No
Internet : Yes : No
trp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.923 of 2021
To
The Judicial Magistrate Court, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P(MD).No.923 of 2021
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
trp
CRP(PD)(MD).No. 923 of 2021and
CMP(MD).No. 5219 of 2021
30.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
