Dismissed

Dr.B.Fazil v. J.Reshma Banu

Madras HC4 Nov 2024CRP/3219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to quash a Domestic Violence case via a civil revision, arguing the parties had already settled via a Mubarat. The Court held that without a judicial declaration establishing the Mubarat, the marital relationship persists, barring quashing. The civil revision was dismissed, but appearance of certain petitioners was dispensed with.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Appearance of petitioners 2, 3 dispensed with to be represented by counsel.

Dr.B.Fazil Vs J.Reshma Banu — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRP No.3219 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.11.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN

¶6

CRP No.3219 of 2024 and CMP No.17191 of 2024

¶7

1.Dr.B.Fazil 2.A.Basha 3.Mrs.Nasreen Basha 4.R.M.Rizwan 5.Shababa Rizwan 6.Rafik ... Petitioners Vs J.Reshma Banu ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the proceedings in D.V.C No.9 of 2023 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai and quash the DVC No.9 of 2023.

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Madhar Khan For Respondent : Mr.B.Dilli Babu For Mr.K.Yuvaraj

¶10

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

1/6

CRP No.3219 of 2024

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition seeks to strike off DVC No.9 of 2023 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate cum Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.

¶15

The 1^st civil revision petitioner is the husband, the petitioners 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law and the 4^th petitioner is the brother-inlaw, 5^th petitioner is the wife of 4^th petitioner and the 6^th petitioner is the father-in-law of 5^th petitioner (father of the 4^th petitioner). Pleading that the parties have already agreed and entered into a Mubarat on 27.12.2022, on the basis of which, a suit in O.S.No.26 of 2022 was presented on the file of III Additional Family Court, Chennai, this Civil Revision Petition has been presented.

¶16

According to Mr.S.Madhar Khan, since the parties have already settled the matter by way of Mubarat, filing of a Domestic Violence Case is an abuse of process of Court.

¶17

2/6

¶18

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

¶19

CRP No.3219 of 2024

¶20

Mr.B.Dilli Babu representing the sole respondent pleads that the Mubarat dated 27.12.2022 had not been voluntarily entered into by the sole respondent. He argues that the wife never agreed to dissolve the marriage dated 10.03.2019 by agreement. He pleads that wife has initiated proceedings before the Family Court in M.C.No.30 of 2023, claiming maintenance.

¶21

I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

Whether the Mubarat dated 27.12.2022 is true or genuine is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2022. Unless and until a declaration is granted by the Family Court stating that Mubarat is genuine and is binding on the parties, the relationship between the first petitioner and the sole respondent has to be treated as that of man and wife. If that be the situation, the domestic violence petition cannot be struck off as abuse of process. It is only if the Mubarat is found to be true and genuine, then, all matters having been settled in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, is the wife barred from initiating proceedings invoking

¶23

3/6

¶24

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

¶25

CRP No.3219 of 2024

¶26

Domestic Violence Act 43 of 2005. As long as no decree has been passed, as pointed out above, the relationship continues. If the relationship continues,

¶27

the wife is entitled to move an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act.

¶28

Leaving it open to the parties to contest the proceedings on merits,

¶29

I am not inclined to quash the proceedings in DVC No.9 of 2023.

¶30

At this stage, Mr.S.Madhar Khan points out that the petitioners 2 and 3 are aged and petitioners 4 to 6 are in-laws of the sole respondent and therefore, their appearance may be dispensed with.

¶31

Mr.B.Dilli Babu states that petitioners 4 to 6 have already been

¶32

dropped from the array of the parties by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and therefore, the question of appearance before the Court, at this stage, will not arise.

¶33

Taking into consideration the age of the 2^nd petitioner and the relationship between the 3^rd petitioner and the sole respondent, I am inclined

¶34

4/6

¶35

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

¶36

CRP No.3219 of 2024

¶37

to dispense with the appearance of the petitioners 2 and 3 before the Metropolitan Magistrate cum Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai. This benefit will not enure in favour of the first petitioner. The petitioners 2 and 3 will be represented by a counsel on all the hearing dates. They shall appear when their presence is essential or when it is so directed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

¶38

With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶39

04.11.2024

¶40

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order sr

¶41

¶42

Metropolitan Magistrate cum Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai

¶43

5/6

¶44

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

¶45

CRP No.3219 of 2024

¶46

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.,

¶47

CRP No.3219 of 2024

¶48

04.11.2024

¶49

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

¶50

6/6

Dr.B.Fazil v. J.Reshma Banu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.B.Fazil v. J.Reshma Banu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elumalai Vs Alamelu Ammal

K. Ramachandran Vs Visakar

Dr.S.Venkatprabu Vs S.v.Santhi

D. Saranya Vs Samuel

The Registrar Vs C. Deivarani

Varshini Vs K. Manikandan