Disposed

Arunthathi Alias Jeyanthi v. R. Sowmiya

Madras HC6 Mar 2024CRP(MD)/226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a civil revision petition under Article 227 challenging DV Act proceedings. The court directed parties to seek relief (deletion application or dispensation from appearance) at the trial court, dismissing the revision as not warranting interference without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition stands disposed of without touching upon the merits of the matter. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Arunthathi Alias Jeyanthi Vs R. Sowmiya — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 06/03/2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.226 of 2024 and

¶7

CMP(MD)Nos.949 and 950 of 2024

¶8

1.Arunthathi @ Jeyanthi

¶9

2.Karuppaiah

¶10

3.R.Kiruthika : Petitioners/Respondents 2 to 4

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.R.Sowmiya : 1^st Respondent/Petitioner 2.K.Arun Pradesh : 2^nd Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: - Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of the impugned proceedings in DVC No.29 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Pudukottai District initiated by the respondent and quash the same in respect of the petitioners as illegal and erroneous forthwith and pass such other or further orders.

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Sankara Pandian

¶15

This civil revision petition has been filed seeking

¶16

to struck off the petition in DV No.29 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Pudukottai District.

¶17

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

¶18

1/16

¶19

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶20

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶21

petitioners.

¶22

3.Let me extract the relevant portion of the

¶23

judgment reported in the case of Arul Danial Vs. Suganya (2022(3)MWN (CR.)539(FB) :-

¶24

“7.The Division Bench, in P.Ganesan, supra, has categorically and correctly restated the legal position, in two places that the proceedings under the D.V. Act are civil in nature. For the sake of convenience, we are extracting those portions from P. Ganesan, supra.

¶25

“15 (o) To sum up: (i) As we have already held that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are civil in

¶26

nature.............

¶27

16 (c) We have already held that the proceedings under Chapter IV of the Domestic Violence Act are civil in nature..........”

¶28

8.We concur with the above view of Anand Venkatesh, J., as affirmed by the Division Bench in P.Ganesan, supra.

¶29

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

¶30

2/16

¶31

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶32

However, after saying so, the Division Bench, in P.Ganesan, supra, found itself in disagreement with the opinion of Anand Venkatesh, J. that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a D.V. proceedings is not maintainable and has given a contrary opinion which is as under:

¶33

“N.Anand Venkatesh, J. held that the Magistrate while adjudicating Civil rights cannot be called Criminal Court. We do not agree with this view of the learned Judge, firstly because the Parliament intended to deliberately confer Jurisdiction on the Criminal Court. An appeal is also provided to the Court of Sessions and not to the District Judge. Secondly, the learned Judge relied upon a number of cases to hold that where the Magistrate is conferred power to grant reliefs of Civil nature he cannot be called to a ‘Criminal Court’. We find that in all the Judgments referred by the learned Judge, the Courts have held that the Magistrate was not a Court when he was exercising Ministerial/Administrative functions and not a criminal Court when he was following the procedure stipulated under the Special Act which gave his power

¶34

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

¶35

3/16

¶36

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶37

and not under Cr.P.C.. Therefore, in our view those Judgments cannot be relied upon to hold that the Magistrate is not a criminal Court while dealing with an Application under 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. Just as we found that the nature of reliefs would determine the character of the proceedings we find that the nature of the procedure adopted would determine the character of the Tribunal. There is no doubt that the Magistrate dealing with proceedings under Domestic Violence Act is a Criminal Court who has to follow the procedure under Cr.P.C., exception being provided under Section 28

¶38

(2) of the Act.” (emphasis supplied)

¶39

9.From a reading of the aforesaid, we are able to infer that albeit the fact that D.V. proceedings initiated on an application under Section 12 are civil proceedings, the Magistrate is nonetheless a Criminal Court as the procedure he is required to follow is one under the Code of Criminal Procedure. To put it more precisely, according to the Division Bench, it is not the substantive law, but the procedural law that determines the

¶40

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

¶41

4/16

¶42

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶43

character of the Court of the Magistrate. This is where, in our considered opinion, with due respect, the Division Bench appears to have fallen in error.”

¶44

4.Similarly regarding the appearance of the parties

¶45

before the trial court, para (iv) may be extracted herein:-

¶46

“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)”

¶47

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

¶48

5/16

¶49

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶50

5.In view of the above said directions, the parties are at liberty to approach the concerned trial court itself for dispensing their appearance, of course with the above said limitation.

¶51

6.In the light of the above said statement of law, now we will go to the another aspect.

¶52

7.As stated in the Full Court Judgement, even though, petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C will not lie, Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked on a specific plea and circumstances.

¶53

8.Let me extract the relevant portion:-

¶54

“xiv.A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution may still be maintainable if it is shown that the

¶55

proceedings before the Magistrate suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The

¶56

jurisdiction under Article 227 is one of superintendence and is visitorial in

¶57

nature and will not be exercised unless

¶58

there exists a clear jurisdictional error and that manifest or substantial

¶59

injustice would be caused if the power

¶60

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

¶61

6/16

¶62

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶63

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

¶64

9.In the light of the statement of law, it is submitted that now this civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶65

10.Now we shall examine as to whether the petitioners satisfied the requirement of law namely;-

¶66

(i)whether the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate is illegal, because of the patent lack of jurisdiction;

¶67

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

¶68

7/16

¶69

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶70

(ii)Whether there is any error in jurisdiction; and

¶71

(iii)Whether there is any manifest or substantial injustice.

¶72

11.Now what is meant by jurisdictional error has also been elaborately discussed in the judgment. Let me extract the relevant portions:-

¶73

“25.At this juncture, it is

¶74

necessary to notice that the word “jurisdiction” relates to the power of the Court to decide a class or classes of cases. The import of the expression has been considered by the Supreme Court

¶75

in Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties, 2020(6)SCC 557 , wherein, it

¶76

was observed as under:-

¶77

“The word “jurisdiction” is derived

¶78

from Latin words “juris” and “dico”,

¶79

meaning “I speak by the law” and does not relate to rights of parties as between each other but to the power of the court. Jurisdiction relates to a

¶80

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/16

¶81

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶82

class of cases to which a particular case belongs. Jurisdiction is the authority by which a judicial officer takes cognizance and decides the cases. It only presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court having control over subject-matter which comes within classification limits of the law under which court has been established. It should have control over the parties' litigant, control over the parties' territory, it may also relate to pecuniary as well as the nature of the class of cases. Jurisdiction is

¶83

generally understood as the authority to decide, render a judgment, inquire into the facts, to apply the law, and to pronounce a judgment. When there is the want of general power to act, the court has no jurisdiction. When the court has

¶84

the power to inquire into the facts, apply the law, render binding judgment, and enforce it, the court has jurisdiction. Judgment within a jurisdiction has to be immune from

¶85

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

¶86

9/16

¶87

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶88

collateral attack on the ground of nullity. It has co-relation with the constitutional and statutory power of tribunal or court to hear and determine. It means the power or capacity fundamentally to entertain, hear, and determine.” (emphasis supplied)

¶89

26.In view of the above, the power

¶90

of the Magistrate to entertain and decide an Application under Section 12 and grant one or more reliefs under the D.V. Act is an aspect of his jurisdiction. It is settled law that jurisdiction is an issue that belongs to the realm of substantive law. Procedural law, on the other hand, prescribes the mode and manner in which such jurisdiction is to be exercised. A character of the Court is an essential aspect of its substantive jurisdiction, and would depend on the nature or subject matter of the case before it.

¶91

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

¶92

10/16

¶93

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶94

12.So absolutely, the petitioners cannot say that there is inherent lack of jurisdiction in view of the above said statement of law.

¶95

13.Now we will examine as to whether the other

¶96

ingredients are attracted namely whether there is any manifest or substantial injustice occasioned to the petitioners.

¶97

14.In the light of the above said ingredients, we will examine the factual aspects to answer this point.

¶98

The complaint is filed by the 1st respondent with the following allegations :-

¶99

The marriage between herself and the husband took place on 12/12/2018 at Santharaman Temple, Pudukottai as per the Hindu customary rites. At the time of marriage, sufficient seervarisai and household articles were provided. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 05/12/2019. From the date of marriage, the husband and his family members harassed the wife demanding more dowry. She was driven out of the matrimonial home. Later started harassing her to give consent for mutual divorce.

¶100

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

¶101

11/16

¶102

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶103

16.Seeking quashment of the same, this revision petition has been filed stating that the marriage is a love marriage. After the marriage, they started living in a separate house. They did not demand any such dowry. So far as the third petitioner is concerned, she got married long back and living separately in her matrimonial home. So there is no question of harassment. The entire allegations made in the complaint are all false.

¶104

17.So the next question, which arises for

¶105

consideration is whether the grievance expressed by the petitioners will cause or have occasioned manifest injustice.

¶106

18.What is meant by manifest injustice is a term,

¶107

which is not defined in terms anywhere. We will fall back the definition 'manifest injustice ' made in Black's Law Dictionary runs like this:-

¶108

“ manifest injustice .A direct, obvious,

¶109

and observable error in a trial court, such as

¶110

a defendant's guilty plea that is involuntary

¶111

or is based on a plea agreement that the prosecution has rescinded.”

¶112

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

¶113

12/16

¶114

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶115

19.In the light of the above said definition, when

¶116

we examine the factual aspects, as mentioned above, now again, it is a clear answer and remedy suggested to the people like the petitioners in the light of the decision rendered in Dr.P.Pathmanathan Vs. Monica [(2021(2)CTC 57]. So the petitioners can very well redress their grievance before the trial court itself by filing appropriate application for deletion as the case may be.

¶117

20.Similarly for the request of dispensing with the personal appearance, the Co-ordinate Bench of this court

¶118

in Velumani and another Vs. Pavithra and another

¶119

(CRP(MD)No.2568 of 2023, dated 10/10/2023) has observed like this.

¶120

“12.Regarding the petitioner's prayer for dispensing with their personal appearance, it is necessary to refer the following direction in Arul Daniel's case above referred.

¶121

“76....

¶122

iv.Personal appearance of the respondent(s) shall not be ordinarily insisted upon, if the parties are effectively represented through a counsel. From VII of the D.V Rules, 2006, makes it clear that the parties can

¶123

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

¶124

13/16

¶125

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶126

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)”.

¶127

21.The same may be followed by the petitioners as

¶128

well as the trial court.

¶129

22.So this civil revision petition deserves no consideration at all, of course with the above said liberty.

¶130

23.With the above said liberty, this civil revision petition stands disposed of without touching upon the merits of the matter. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶131

06/03/2024

¶132

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

¶133

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

¶134

14/16

¶135

C.R.P.(MD)No.226 of 2024

¶136

To,