Madras High Court
Muthulingam vs Ramya ... 1St on 14 July, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.R.P.(MD)No.655 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.07.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P.[PD].(MD)No.655 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.3525 & 3526 of 2025
1.Muthulingam
2.Muthuraj
3.Muthukrishnan
4.Muthukani
5.Nivetha
6.Muthuselvi
7.Muthukala
8.Ganapthi
9.Chellathai ...Petitioners/Respondents 2 to 10
Vs.
1.Ramya ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2.Murugan ... Respondents/Petitioners
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to Strike Off the DVC proceedings initiated by the first respondent in
D.V.C.No.25 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and allow
the above Civil Revision Petition.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 02:44:50 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)No.655 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy
For R1 : Mr.N.Pragalathan
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to strike off the impugned
proceedings in D.V.C.No.25 of 2023, pending before the Judicial Magistrate,
Eraniel.
2. The petitioners herein are the respondents 2 to 10 in D.V.C.No.25 of
2023, before the trial Court. The first respondent herein has filed D.V.C.No.25
of 2023, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Eraniel, under the provisions of
the Domestic Violence Act and BNSS, 2023.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the
petitioners are in-laws of the first respondent. The first respondent has initiated
domestic violence proceedings against the petitioners and the second
respondent. It is submitted that the petitioners are in no way connected with the
allegations made by the first respondent in the DVC case and though the second
respondent is ready and willing to live with the first respondent it is only the
first respondent who is not coming to live with him and has initiated the present
case. Therefore, he prays that the petitioners may be permitted to raise all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 02:44:50 pm )
grounds mentioned herein before the trial court. He also requests this Court to
dispense with their personal appearance before the trial court.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that if this
Court is inclined to dispense with the appearance of the petitioners, this Court
may impose requisite conditions to see to it that the presence of the petitioners
at the times, during which the presence of the petitioners are mandatory be
safeguarded so that the petitioners does not frustrate the trial proceedings by
dragging on the same to the detriment of the first respondent.
5.This Court, taking into consideration the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, permits the petitioners to raise all the
grounds as raised herein before the trial court at the time of trial. Taking into
consideration the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, their
appearance before the trial court is dispensed with except for their appearance
for the purpose of receiving the copy of the proceedings u/s 230 of BNSS,
framing of charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and on the day on
which judgment is to be pronounced. However, if for any particular reason, the
presence of the petitioners are necessary, the trial court, at its wisdom, shall
direct their to appear on those days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 02:44:50 pm )
6.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
14.07.2025
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
am
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Eraniel.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 02:44:50 pm )
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
am
14.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/07/2025 02:44:50 pm )
