Disposed

Perappa Naidu v. Lakshmipriya

Madras HC5 Dec 2022CRP(MD)/2444/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 to strike off domestic violence proceedings. Court found petition grievance-based not jurisdictional hence not maintainable but directed expedited disposal within six months, allowed deletion application at Magistrate level, and excused personal appearance.

What did the court decide?

[None granted; petition disposed without entertaining merits]

Perappa Naidu Vs Lakshmipriya — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2444 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 05.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2444 of 2022 and CMP(MD)Nos.11847 and 11849 of 2022

¶7

Perappa Naidu 2. Janakiyammal ... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

Lakshmipriya

¶10

Minor Abinanthu ... Respondents

¶11

(Minor is represented by her mother 1^st respondent)

¶12

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶13

of India, to struck off the complaint in D.V.O.P.No.8 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Gokul Raj

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the proceedings initiated by the first respondent herein in D.V.O.P.No.8 of 2022 before 1/6

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2444 of 2022

¶19

the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, Dindigul District. The petitioners herein are respondents in D.V.O.P.No.8 of 2022.

¶20

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in the reference made in

¶21

Crl.O.P.SR.Nos.31852 of 2022, etc. (batch), dated 17.11.2022, has answered as follows:

¶22

“A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution may still be maintainable if it is shown that the proceedings before the Magistrate suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is one of superintendence and is visitorial in nature and will not be exercised unless there exists a clear jurisdictional error and that manifest or substantial injustice would be caused if the power is not exercised in favour of the petitioner. (See Abdul Razak v Mangesh Rajaram Wagle (2010) 2 SCC 432, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v Tuticorin Educational Society (2019) 9 SCC 538). In normal circumstances, the power under Article 227 will not be exercised, as a measure of self-imposed restriction, in view of the

¶23

2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2444 of 2022

¶26

corrective mechanism available to the aggrieved parties before the Magistrate, and then by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the Act.”

¶27

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court has also held that the

¶28

personal appearance of the parties shall not be insisted upon, if the parties are effectively represented through a counsel. The relevant portion is extracted as under:

¶29

“iv. Personal appearance of the respondent(s) shall

¶30

not be ordinarily insisted upon, if the parties are effectively represented through a counsel. Form VII of the D.V. Rules, 2006, makes it clear that the parties can appear before the Magistrate either in person or through a duly authorized counsel. In all cases, the personal appearance of relatives and other third parties to the domestic relationship shall be insisted only upon compelling reasons being shown. (See Siladitya Basak v. State of West Bengal (2009 SCC OnLine Cal 1903).”

¶31

3/6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2444 of 2022

¶34

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the first respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and not filed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable before this Court, as per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench (cited supra). However, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition in the following terms:

¶35

(i) If the petitioners are having any grievance that they have been unnecessarily added as parties to the proceedings, it is open to them to file an application before the learned Magistrate to delete their names and if any such application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall decide the same, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunapareddy v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari, reported in ( 2016) 11 SCC 774 .

¶36

(ii) If the petitioners are represented through a counsel, the learned Magistrate shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners. However, the petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when their presence is required by the Court.

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2444 of 2022

¶40

(iii) The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of D.V.O.P.No.8 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No

¶42

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶43

05.12.2022

¶44

ogy

¶45

Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.

¶46

¶47

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, Dindigul District.

¶48

5/6

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2444 of 2022

¶51

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶52

ogy

¶53

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2444 of 2022

¶54

05.12.2022

¶55

6/6

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Perappa Naidu v. Lakshmipriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perappa Naidu v. Lakshmipriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Tiburcius, Vs S.Emerson

Soundarammal (Died), 1. Balamani, Vs Purusothaman(Died)

Natarajan, Vs Gomathi

P.Lakshmanan Vs Rm.Vellaichamy

Nirmal Kumar Prakasam, Vs K. Vindhiya

Ponnambalam, Vs Vembusamy