Disposed

Balasubramanian v. Ananthapriya

Madras HC1 Dec 2022CRP(MD)/331/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition was not maintainable on jurisdictional grounds but disposed of by directing Magistrate to delete unnecessary petitioner, dispense with personal appearance if counsel is present, and finish the Domestic Violence case within five months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear only if required; Magistrate to delete unnecessary petitioner if application filed and to dispose of DV case within five months.

Balasubramanian Vs Ananthapriya — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(MD).No.331 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(MD)No.331 of 2022

¶7

Balasubramanian :Petitioner/Respondent/Respondent

¶8

Vs.,

¶9

1.Ananthapriya 2.Minor Thejus (R2 rep., through its mother/natural guardian, the first respondent herein)

¶10

: Respondents/Petitioners/Petitioners

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records and set aside the order in C.M.P.No.2210 of 2021 in D.V.No.14 of 2021 dated 02.12.2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai, Karur District.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Karuna

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the proceedings initiated by the respondents herein in C.M.P.No.2210 of 2021 in 1/6

¶15

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

¶16

CRP(MD).No.331 of 2022

¶17

D.V.No.14 of 2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai. The petitioner herein is respondent in C.M.P.No.2210 of 2021 in D.V.No.14 of 2021.

¶18

The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in the reference made in Crl.O.P.SR.Nos.31852 of 2022, etc. (batch), dated 17.11.2022, has answered as follows:

¶19

“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 corrective mechanism available to the aggrieved

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

CRP(MD).No.331 of 2022

¶23

parties before the Magistrate, and then by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the Act.”

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and not filed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

CRP(MD).No.331 of 2022

¶30

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:

¶31

(i) If the petitioner is having any grievance that he has been unnecessarily added as parties to the proceedings, it is open to him to file an application before the learned Magistrate to delete his name 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 .

¶32

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

¶33

(iii) The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of D.V.No.14 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

4/6

¶35

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

¶36

CRP(MD).No.331 of 2022

¶37

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶38

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶39

01.12.2022

¶40

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Rmk

¶41

¶42

The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai.

¶43

5/6

¶44

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

¶45

CRP(MD).No.331 of 2022

¶46

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶47

Rmk

¶48

CRP(MD)No.331 of 2022

¶49

01.12.2022

¶50

6/6

¶51

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

Balasubramanian v. Ananthapriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasubramanian v. Ananthapriya

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

Rubi Vs Anitha

G.Baskar Vs P.Kanimozhi

Ramar, Vs Chellashwari

S.Selvam Vs a.Ishwarya

Ameenabeevi Vs Asbina Asrin

Rajeshkumar Vs K.T. Manimegalai