Disposed

Vedhavalli, v. Durga Devi

Madras HC2 Jan 2023CRP(MD)/2624/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenging domestic violence proceedings on grounds other than lack of jurisdiction is not maintainable. However, the Court directed the Magistrate to delete the petitioner's name if requested and not insist on her personal appearance since she is counsel-represented.

What did the court decide?

Deleted petitioner's name if application filed by Magistrate; dispensed with personal appearance since represented; directed Magistrate to dispose of D.V.C. No. 24 of 2021 within four months.

Vedhavalli, Vs Durga Devi — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2624 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2624 of 2022 and CMP(MD) Nos.12794 & 12795 of 2022

Vedhavalli

... Petitioner

1.Durga Devi 2.P.Jayagobi

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of D.V.C.No.24 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti and quash the same as against the petitioner herein, under the provisions of Sections 12, 20, 22 & 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Pandian

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the proceedings

¶16

initiated by the first respondent herein in D.V.C.No.24 of 2021 before

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2624 of 2022

¶20

the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Kovilpatti. The petitioner herein is one of the respondents in D.V.C.No.24 of 2021.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

“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

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2624 of 2022

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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:

¶30

“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).”

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2624 of 2022

¶34

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the mother-in-law of the first respondent, challenging the proceedings initiated by the first respondent, under Sections 12, 20, 22 & 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 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 petitioner is having any grievance that she has been unnecessarily added as party to the proceedings, it is open to her to file an application before the learned Magistrate to delete her 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 .

¶36

(ii) If the petitioner is represented through a counsel, the learned Magistrate shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner. However, the

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

CRP(PD)(MD)No.2624 of 2022

¶40

petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when their presence is required by the Court.

¶41

(iii) The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of D.V.C.No.24 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42