Disposed

Mumthaj Begam v. S. Ajima Begam

Madras HC14 Nov 2024CRP(MD)/2837/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondents in a domestic violence petition sought to strike off DVOP No.2 of 2024 via a civil revision petition under Article 227, alleging bald allegations and no jurisdictional error. The court held no patent lack of jurisdiction or manifest injustice existed, directed them to seek relief before the trial court, and disposed of the revision without touching the merits.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of with liberty to approach the trial court for relief and dispensing of personal appearance; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Mumthaj Begam Vs S. Ajima Begam — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 14/11/2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

C.R.P(MD)No.2837 of 2024 and

¶7

CMP(MD)Nos.16244 and 16245 of 2024

¶8

1.Mumthaj Begam

¶9

2.Dheen Mohammed : Petitioners/Respondents 2 & 3 Vs.

¶10

PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records relating to the case in DVOP No.2 of 2024 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Nilakottai and strike off the same as illegal insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This civil revision petition has been filed seeking

¶13

to struck off the proceedings of the complaint in DVOP No.2 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai

¶14

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

¶15

1/15

¶16

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶17

2..Heard both sides.

¶18

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

¶19

“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.

¶20

(i) As we have already held that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are civil in

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

8.We concur with the above view of Anand Venkatesh, J., as affirmed by the Division Bench in P.Ganesan, supra. However, after saying so, the Division Bench, in P.Ganesan, supra, found itself

¶24

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

¶25

2/15

¶26

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶27

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:

¶28

“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 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

¶29

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

¶30

3/15

¶31

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶32

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 (2) of the Act.” (emphasis supplied)

¶33

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 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.”

¶34

4.These are the directions issued, while

¶35

entertaining the petition under Domestic Violence Act. So the petitioners can very well invoke those directions before the trial court itself.

¶36

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

¶37

4/15

¶38

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶39

5.Similarly regarding the appearance of the parties before the trial court, para (iv) may be extracted herein:-

¶40

“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)”

¶41

6.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.

¶42

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

¶43

8.As stated in the Full Court Judgement, even

¶44

though, petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C will not

¶45

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

¶46

5/15

¶47

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶48

lie, Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked on a specific plea and circumstances.

¶49

9.Let me extract the relevant portion:-

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

Paribalana Sabai v Tuticorin Educational Society (2019) 9 SCC 538). In normal

¶53

circumstances, the power under Article 227 will not be exercised, as a measure of self-imposed restriction, in view of

¶54

the corrective mechanism available to

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/15

¶56

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶57

the aggrieved parties before the Magistrate, and then by way of an appeal

¶58

under Section 29 of the Act.”

¶59

10.So, in the light of the statement of law, now this civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶60

11.Now we shall examine as to whether the

¶61

petitioners satisfied the requirement of law namely;-

¶62

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

¶63

(ii)Whether there is any error in jurisdiction;

¶64

and

¶65

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

¶66

12.Now what is meant by jurisdiction a error has been elaborately discussed in the judgment. Let me extract the relevant portions:-

¶67

“25.At this juncture, it is

¶68

necessary to notice that the word

¶69

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

¶70

7/15

¶71

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶72

“jurisdiction” relates to the power of

¶73

the Court to decide a class or classes of cases. The import of the expression has been considered by the Supreme Court in Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties, 2020(6)SCC 557 , wherein, it was observed as under:-

¶74

“The word “jurisdiction” is derived

¶75

from Latin words “juris” and “dico”, meaning “I speak by the law” and does

¶76

not relate to rights of parties as between each other but to the power of the court. Jurisdiction relates to a class of cases to which a particular case belongs. Jurisdiction is the authority by which a judicial officer takes cognizance and decides the cases.

¶77

It only presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court having control over subject-matter which comes within

¶78

classification limits of the law under

¶79

which court has been established. It

¶80

should have control over the parties' litigant, control over the parties' territory, it may also relate to

¶81

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

¶82

8/15

¶83

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶84

pecuniary as well as the nature of the class of cases. Jurisdiction is 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 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 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.

¶85

It means the power or capacity fundamentally to entertain, hear, and determine.” (emphasis supplied)

¶86

26.In view of the above, the power

¶87

of the Magistrate to entertain and decide an Application under Section 12 and grant one or more reliefs under the

¶88

D.V. Act is an aspect of his

¶89

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

¶90

9/15

¶91

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶92

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.”

¶93

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

¶94

14.Now we will examine as to whether the other

¶95

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

¶96

15.So in the light of the above said ingredients, we will examine the factual aspects to answer this point.

¶97

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

¶98

10/15

¶99

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶100

The complaint is filed by the 1st respondent with

¶101

the following allegations :-

¶102

The marriage between the husband and wife took place on 11/12/2019 as per Muslim Customs and Rituals. At the time of marriage, the parents of the wife gifted 60 sovereigns of gold jewels and sridhana articles worth about Rs.5,00,000/-. They begotten one male child namely Sithik Raja. After the marriage, the wife was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by her husband and inlaws without any reason, not taking care during the postdelivery period. Later due to some misunderstanding between the husband and wife, on the intervention of Jamath members, she along with his husband started to live separately at Vathithalagundu from 10/02/2023. At

¶103

that time, the husband addicted to liquor and used to assault the wife frequently. Now, she is living

¶104

separately along with the children. The husband is not taking proper care even for the children's welfare. So, she filed the Domestic violence Petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai, in DVOP No.2 of 2024 seeking various reliefs.

¶105

17.This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners, who are the respondents 2 to 3 in the original petition stating that only bald allegations are

¶106

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

¶107

11/15

¶108

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶109

made against them. The complainant never behaved as a dutiful wife to the husband. Even the advise made by them to the complainant to go to the matrimonial home, did not take effectively.

¶110

18.So the next question, which arises for

¶111

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

¶112

19.What is meant by manifest injustice is a term, which is not defined in terms anywhere. We will fall back the definition 'manifest injustice ' made in Black's Law Dictionary runs like this:-

¶113

“ manifest injustice . A direct, obvious,

¶114

and observable error in a trial court, such as

¶115

a defendant's guilty plea that is involuntary

¶116

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

¶117

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

¶118

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

¶119

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

¶120

12/15

¶121

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶122

57].

¶123

rendered in Dr.P.Pathmanathan Vs. Monica [(2021(2)CTC

¶124

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.

¶125

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

¶126

in Velumani and another Vs. Pavithra and another (CRP(MD)No.2568 of 2023, dated 10/10/2023) has observed like this.

¶127

“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.

¶128

“76....

¶129

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 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

¶130

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

¶131

13/15

¶132

C.R.P.(MD)No.2837 of 2024

¶133

reasons being shown. (See Siladitya Basak V. State of West Bengal (2009 SCC OnLine Cal 1903)”.

¶134

22.The same may be followed by the petitioners as

¶135

well as the trial court.