Dismissed

S. Lashanth v. Arivoli Nangai

Madras HC15 Dec 2023CRP/4498/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision petition seeking quashment of Domestic Violence proceedings, holding the matter ripe for trial. The Court granted liberty to defend, clarified that proceedings are civil in nature, and dispensed with personal appearance for in-laws without compelling reasons.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; liberty granted to appear in trial court; no order as to costs.

S. Lashanth Vs Arivoli Nangai — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP.No.4498 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 15.12.2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMIL SELVI

¶7

CRP.No.4498 of 2023

¶8

S.Lashanth

¶9

Veronika

¶10

Savarinadin

¶11

Brigintha

¶12

Lashar

¶13

Nadiya

¶14

Mari Phelixia

¶15

... Petitioners

¶16

Vs.

¶17

Arivoli Nangai ... Respondent

¶18

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

¶19

India, praying to quash the D.V.C.No.30 of 2022 pending on the file of the

¶20

Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur.

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Suresh Philemon

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the D.V.C.No.30 of

¶24

2022 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur.

¶25

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

¶26

2 CRP.No.4498 of 2023

¶27

Heard, Mr.P.Suresh Philemon, learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶28

perused the materials available on record.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1^st petitioner is the husband of the respondent herein, and other petitioners are in laws of the respondent, against whom she lodged a complaint, stating that they were harrased her and not permitted to live in the matrimonial home. He further submitted that the petitioners 2 and 7 have no way connected with the alleged matrimonial dispute, hence he prays to exist in the proceedings.

¶30

4.On seeing the facts that, now the case is ripe for trial and P.W.1 was examined and the matter become parted. At this stage it cannot be entertained and liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer all the defence before the trial Court. However, the proceeding are considered as like Civil in nature. The appearance of the parties are ordered to be dispensed with.

¶31

Considering the above, the petitioners 2 to 7 are entitled to approach the concerned Magistrate Court itself and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues and if such an application is filed, the learned

¶32

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

¶33

CRP.No.4498 of 2023

¶34

¶35

Magistrate shall decide the same as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna

¶36

Kumari and another reported in (2016) 11 SCC 774.

¶37

On considering the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the clear view that the petitioners have not shown any legal ground or reason to quash the complaint and hence, this Court concludes that the Civil Revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

Regarding the petitioners' prayer for dispensing with their personal appearance, it is necessary to refer the following direction in Arul Daniel's

¶39

case above referred,

¶40

“76. .....

¶41

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).”

¶42

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

¶43

4 CRP.No.4498 of 2023

¶44

The Hon'ble Full Bench has reiterated the legal position that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are Civil in nature and as such, the respondents in the Domestic Violence complaint cannot be considered as accused and there is absolutely no need or necessity for them to appear for each and every hearing before the learned Magistrate. Hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed not to insist the appearance of the petitioners/respondents 2 to 7 on every hearings, but at the same time, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to direct the petitioners/ respondents 2 to 7, to appear if their appearance is necessary.

¶45

With the above observation and direction, this Civil Revision Petition

¶46

is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition if any is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

15.12.2023

¶48

Index : Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rri

¶49

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

CRP.No.4498 of 2023

The Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Perambalur.

¶54

2.The Section Officer, VR-Section, High Court of Madras.

¶55

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

¶56

CRP.No.4498 of 2023

¶57

¶58

T.V.THAMIL SELVI, J.

¶59

rri

¶60

CRP.No.4498 of 2023

¶61

15.12.2023

¶62

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

S. Lashanth v. Arivoli Nangai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Lashanth v. Arivoli Nangai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Infant Judina Fernando Vs J.David Anthony

T.Edith Lydia Vs R.Suganthan

Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd. Vs C.N.Srinivasan

D.Vasantha Vs v.Krishnamoorthy

Loheswari @ Priya Vs N.Srinivasan

Dheivanilla Vs Mayilvahanan