Madras High Court
Anu @ Cannaguy vs Keerthana on 18 October, 2024
C.R.P. (PD) No.47 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.47 of 2024
1.Anu @ Cannaguy
2.Venkatachalapathy .. Petitioners
Versus
1.Keerthana
2.V.Viknesh .. Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to call for the records relating to the D.V.C.No.38 of 2023 pending on
the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Alandur and quash the same.
For the Petitioners : Mr.A.Kripakaran
For the Respondents : Ms.Rohini Ravikumar for R1
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition seeks to quash the domestic violence
complaint instituted in D.V.C.No.38 of 2023 on the file of the Additional
Mahila Court, Alandur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The Full Bench of this Court in Arul Daniel and Others Vs.
Suganya, (2022 [6] CTC 833) has laid down that if a person is aggrieved by
the initiation of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, the appropriate
remedy is only to approach the very same Court which deals with the Domestic
Violence complaint and file an application for strike of. The Full Bench further
held that if the strike of petition goes against the applicant, the remedy is to
prefer an appeal against the said order before the jurisdictional sessions Court.
In an unfortunate event, the Sessions Court also goes against the applicant, the
remedy is available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Full
Bench in clear and categoric terms held that unless and until the learned
Magistrate lacks inherent jurisdiction, a petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India should not be ordinarily entertained.
3. In the light of the above Judgment of the Full Bench, this Civil
Revision Petition stands dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to urge
all the points raised in this petition before the learned Magistrate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. At this stage, Mr.Kirubakaran, submits that the 1st petitioner is a
Government servant and the petitioners are permanent residents of Puducherry.
Hence, he seeks for dispense with the personal appearance before the learned
Additional Mahila Judge, Alandur.
5. Ms.Rohini Ravikumar does not have any objections if the
presence of the petitioners are dispensed with, on the condition that they shall
appear whenever their presence is essential.
6. Taking into consideration both the pleas, I am inclined to dispense
with the personal appearance of the petitioners alone before the learned
Magistrate for the proceedings in D.V.C.No.38 of 2023 on the file of the
Additional Mahila Court, Alandur. They shall be represented on all dates of
hearing by a counsel. They shall present themselves before the Court whenever
the Magistrate so directs or when their presence is indispensable. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Jer
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.,
Jer
Index : Yes / No
Internet:Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
The Judge
Additional Mahila Court, Alandur.
Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.47 of 2024
18.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
