Madras High Court
Mohammed Ibrahim vs Mathina Begum on 5 August, 2024
CRP No.2813 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
CRP No.2813 of 2024
and CMP No.14972 of 2024
1. Mohammed Ibrahim
2. Anwar Sherif .. Petitioners
-vs-
Mathina Begum .. Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against
the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Court-I at
Maduranthagam in CMP No.3927 of 2022 in DVC No.5 of 2022 on
28.02.2024.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Karthik
*****
ORDER
The civil revision petitioners are the husband and father-in-law of the
respondent. The first petitioner solemnized his wedding as per Muslim rites
and customs on 15.07.2012 with the respondent. At the time of marriage,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the respondent's father had endowed his daughter with 15 sovereigns of
gold and cash of Rs.50,000/-. He had also gifted a watch to the first
petitioner. Apart from that, the plea of the respondent is that she has
brought forth silver, brass and other household articles worth a sum of
Rs.20,00,000/-.
2. Alleging that four months after the marriage, the first petitioner
abused and had physically beaten her up the respondent, left the
matrimonial home on 03.01.2013. She lodged a complaint at the All Women
Police Station at Tindivanam on 07.02.2013. Thereafter, she lodged the
domestic violence complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I at
Maduranthagam. It was taken on file as D.V.C.No.5 of 2022.
3. The husband took out an application in CMP.No.3927 of 2022
seeking dismissal of the domestic violence complaint. The said petition was
dismissed on 28.02.2024. Against which, the present revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Mr.K.Karthik would submit that the domestic violence complaint is
an abuse of process of law. He would state that the husband had already
initiated divorce proceedings and had obtained divorce from the
jurisdictional court in O.S.No.146 of 2013 on the file of Principal District
Munsif Court at Tindivanam. He would invite the attention of the Court to
the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2017. Apart from that, he would state
that the wife had initiated proceedings in MC.No.6 of 2017 on the file of
Judicial Magistrate Court at Maduranthagam which had ended in her favour
directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. He would state
that suppressing all these facts, the wife has presented the domestic violence
complaint. He would also state that certain falsified documents have been
filed by the respondent. He would rely upon the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Dalip Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (2) SCC 114, and
Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (2) SCC 398 to argue
that if a person suppresses material facts, the petition is not maintainable.
On these grounds, he pleads that the civil revision petition deserves
acceptance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. I have my doubts as to whether an application under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is maintainable
to decide the maintainability of the domestic violence complaint. In fact, the
civil revision petitioner has invoked Section 12 of the Act. A perusal of
Section 12 shows that it can be invoked by an "aggrieved person". An
aggrieved person for the purpose of the Act is a female and a perusal of the
record shows that both the civil revision petitioners are males. Apart from
that, Section 28(2) of the Act enables the Court to fix its own procedure.
6. Insofar as the allegations of the husband that there has been
suppression of previous proceedings and hence the petition deserves
dismissal is concerned, I have to state that the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
dealing with domestic violence complaints commences when the wife is able
to show that there existed a domestic relationship between her and another.
The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent dated
15.07.2012 is not in dispute. At this stage, Mr.Karthik would submit that the
father of the respondent had taken back all the materials that he had given to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the first civil revision petitioner in the presence of Jamadars and he would
invite my attention to the certificate issued by the Jamadars to substantiate
this plea. I cannot appreciate evidence in a revision as a course. It is always
open to the first petitioner to give oral evidence and summon who are all
necessary in order to prove the truth and relevancy of the said document. In
a civil revision petition against the application which is otherwise not
maintainable, I am not in a position to come to the rescue of the husband. A
reading of the complaint shows that there are specific allegations against the
civil revision petitioners and when they exist, it cannot be a subject matter of
trial by a revisional court.
7. Insofar as the authorities that have been referred to by Mr.Karthik
are concerned, they arose under the writ jurisdictions. The remedy of a writ
petition, which is a highly equitable jurisdiction, cannot be equated with the
proceedings initiated under the Domestic Violence Act by the wife. Hence,
the authorities are, unfortunately for Mr.Karthik, inapplicable to the facts of
this case. Suffice it to say that I find prima facie allegations against the civil
revision petitioners and therefore, I am not in a position to set aside the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Maduranthagam in CMP.
No.3927 of 2022 in DVC.No.5 of 2022 dated 28.02.2024. The plea of
Mr.Karthik can certainly be raised at the time of trial in order to get the
petition dismissed.
8. A perusal of the petition shows that the second civil revision
petitioner is a senior citizen. His presence alone is dispensed with. He shall
appear as and when his presence is necessary and for all other hearings, he
shall be represented through a counsel.
9. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
05.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sra
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Maduranthagam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
(sra)
05.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
