Dismissed

T. Anandavalli v. Vijayalakshmi

Madras HC27 Mar 2024CRP/1137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.R.P. 1137 of 2024 concerned the maintainability of a challenge to DV Act proceedings under Article 227. The Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to raise preliminary objections before the trial Magistrate as per Full Bench guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to appear before the Magistrate to raise objections; Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

T. Anandavalli Vs Vijayalakshmi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.No.1137 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 27.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.No.1137 of 2024

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P. No.5887 of 2024

¶9

T. Anandavalli ... Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Vijayalaksmi ...Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India praying to struck off the proceedings vide D.V.C. No.79 of 2019 pending on the file of learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai as against the petitioner / 2^nd respondent.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. D. Manimaran

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the proceedings initiated

¶16

by the respondent under Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C. No.79 of 2019.

¶17

1/5

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.No.1137 of 2024

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

¶21

petitioner is the mother in law of the respondent and there is no specific allegation made agaisnt the petitioner in the complaint preferred by the respondent and therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint as against the petitioner.

¶22

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arul Daniel vs. Suganya reported in (2022) 4 MLJ (Crl) 561 , while considering the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the initiation of proceedings under Domestic Violence Act observed as follows:-

¶23

“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, 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

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P.No.1137 of 2024

¶27

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.”

¶28

In view of the law setted by the Full Bench of this Court in Arul Daniel vs. Suganya reported in (2022) 4 MLJ (Crl) 561 , the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to appear before the very same Magistrate and raise all her objections as to the maintainability of the complaint as well as other jurisdictional issues.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner are

¶30

is 81 years old lady and therefore, her personal appearance may be dispensed with before the Judicial Magistrate.

¶31

3/5

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P.No.1137 of 2024

¶34

It is open to the petitioner to file proper application before the concerned Magistrate seeking to dispense with her personal appearance. If any such application is filed, the same shall be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the law.

¶35

With this liberty, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No

¶36

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

27.03.2024

¶38

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mjs To The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

¶39

4/5

¶40

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

¶41

C.R.P.No.1137 of 2024

¶42

S.SOUNTHAR , J. mjs

¶43

CRP.No.1137 of 2024

¶44

27.03.2024

¶45

5/5

¶46

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

T. Anandavalli v. Vijayalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Anandavalli v. Vijayalakshmi

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

Purushothaman Vs Velmurugan

M Shivakumar Vs M Vijayakumar

R.Thirunavukkarasu Vs v.Saranya

Mr. Subramanian @ Ganesh Vs Lavanya

V.Bangaru (died) 1. Santhi Vs C.Durai (Died) 1.S.Ragupathi

Karthikeyan Educational Charitable Trust Vs Jagadheesan