Civil Revision Petition dismissed. The Court held that Article 227 is not maintainable to quash a Domestic Violence Act complaint absent patent lack of jurisdiction. Respondents need not appear personally unless compelling reasons exist.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed as devoid of merits; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.16865 and 16866 of 2023
1.D.Chandran 2.S.Ramuthai 3.S.Arunadevi : Petitioners/Respondents 2 to 4
Vs.
1.Gengalakshmi
2.Minor Abiganesh : Respondents 1 & 2/ Petitioners 1 & 2 3.Anbuselvan : 3rd Respondent/ 1st Respondent
(Second respondent is represented through his mother as natural guardian/1st petitioner)
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in D.V.O.P.No.6 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur and strike off the same in so far as the petitioners concern.
1/13
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
For Petitioners : Mr.D.Ealamurugapandi
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking orders to strike off the petition in D.V.C.No.6 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur.
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
respondent, have been implicated purposely and wantonly with an intention to harass them and to make unlawful gain if possible, that the first respondent has not shown any material that she was subjected to domestic violence by the petitioners and that therefore, the very petition filed by the respondents is liable to be quashed.
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
answering the reference, has specifically held that Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has no application for challenging a proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, but Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked and it is necessary to refer the following passages hereunder:-
“40 The next question is whether the proceedings under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act can be assailed by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Indubitably, the power of judicial review under the said provision is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. After the decision of the Constitution Bench in L.Chandra Kumar v Union of India 27 , it is no longer open to doubt that the power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 cannot be taken away even by a constitutional amendment, let alone by a statute. Nevertheless, the existence of power is one thing and the exercise of power is quite another. Though the power of superintendence under Article 227 over the proceedings of the Magistrate under the D.V. Act exists, its exercise would, no doubt, be conditioned on certain very salutary principles one of which is that a High Court will not exercise its power of superintendence if there exists an efficacious alternative remedy.
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
41. As has been adverted to, supra, the legislature has very thoughtfully provided an appellate remedy, under Section 31 of the D.V. Act, before the Court of Session against an order of the Magistrate. The existence of an appellate remedy would almost always be a “near total bar” for exercising power under Article 227, as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society 28 . An exception to the aforesaid rule is where the proceedings before the Court below are patently lacking in jurisdiction. An illustrative instance of such a case is where a Magistrate, who does not possess jurisdiction under Section 27, entertains an application under the D.V. Act or where the reliefs sought are outside the scope of the Act, etc. Such instances would, no doubt, be few and far between. We only reiterate that the policy of the D.V. Act is expedition, which cannot be achieved if all and sundry orders are called into question before the High Court. This aspect must necessarily weigh with the learned single judges while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 in a challenge to proceedings under the D.V. Act.”
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
has specifically observed that a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable on a limited ground of patent lack of jurisdiction and except on the limited ground indicated, jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution will not be exercised, as a measure of selfimposed restriction, by-passing the statutory remedies under the D.V. Act, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and others reported in (2019) 9 SCC 538 . In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioners that there is patent lacking of jurisdiction.
“76 Before bringing the curtains down, for the sake of convenience and clarity, we reiterate the following directions passed by the learned single in Pathmanathan,
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
supra, which shall now govern the disposal of applications under the D.V. Act:
x. The Magistrates must take note that the practice of mechanically issuing notices to the respondents named in the application has been deprecated by this Court nearly a decade ago in Vijaya Baskar (cited supra). Precedents are meant to be followed and not forgotten, and the Magistrates would, therefore, do well to examine the applications at the threshold and confine the inquiry only to those persons whose presence before it is proper and necessary for the grant of reliefs under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act.”
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
intention to compel her husband to come to terms and to harass the relatives of her husband and in such a situation, the Magistrates are duty bound to consider the petition at the initial stage itself and take the petition on file against only those persons whose presence before it is proper and necessary for granting the reliefs under Chapter IV of the Domestic Violence Act. If a Magistrate issues notice to all the respondents without properly considering the application filed under the Domestic Violence Act, that by itself is not a ground to approach this Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing or striking the petition filed under the Domestic Violence Act.
Judge in Pathmanathan's case , which was reiterated by the Hon'ble Full Bench,
“76. .....
vii. As there is no issuance of process as contemplated under Section 204, Cr.P.C. in a proceeding under the D.V. Act, the principle laid down in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal ((2004) 7 SCC 338) that a process, under Section 204, Cr.P.C, once issued cannot be reviewed or recalled, will not apply to a proceeding under the D.V. Act. Consequently,
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
it would be open to an aggrieved respondent(s) to approach the Magistrate and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues. Issues like the existence of a shared household/domestic relationship etc., which form the jurisdictional basis for entertaining an application under Section 12, can be determined as a preliminary issue, in appropriate cases. Any person aggrieved by such an order may also take recourse to an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act for effective redress (See V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu V., (2010) 87 AIC 367). This would stem the deluge of petitions challenging the maintainability of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, at the threshold before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.”
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
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.
Arul Daniel's case above referred,
“76. .....
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).”
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
14.12.2023
NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No das
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
To
C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
DAS
Order made in C.R.P.(MD)No.3270 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.16865 and 16866 of 2023
Dated : 14.12.2023
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to quash a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act where no patent lack of jurisdiction is shown.
Whether the issuance of notices to relatives named as respondents in a Domestic Violence petition constitutes a ground for High Court interference under Article 227.
Whether respondents in Domestic Violence proceedings need to appear personally for every hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arul Daniel and others Vs. Suganya and othersFollowed¶26
Arul Daniel and others Vs. Suganya and others 2023 Cri. LJ 339 · Who else cites this
L.Chandra Kumar v Union of IndiaExplained¶30
L.Chandra Kumar v Union of India 27
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational SocietyRelied on¶30
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society 28 (2019) 9 SCC 538 · Who else cites this
Dr.P.Pathmanathan Vs. V.MonicaFollowed¶38
Dr.P.Pathmanathan Vs. V.Monica 2021 1 MLJ (Cri) 311
Vijaya BaskarReferred¶43
Vijaya Baskar (cited supra)
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal JindalDistinguished¶51
Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal (2004) 7 SCC 338 · Who else cites this
V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu V.Referred¶51
V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu V. (2010) 87 AIC 367
Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and anotherReferred¶55
Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another (2016) 11 SCC 774 · Who else cites this
Siladitya Basak v. State of West BengalReferred¶63
Siladitya Basak v. State of West Bengal (2009 SCC OnLine Cal 1903) · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
D.Chandran
S.Ramuthai
S.Arunadevi
Gengalakshmi
Abiganesh
Anbuselvan
K.MURALI SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
