Hameed Sulthan Vs Noorjahan — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2025)

Hameed Sulthan Vs Noorjahan — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief to the revision petitioners; the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed; liberty observations left the petitioners free to approach the learned Magistrate.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to call for the records of DVC.No. 2 of 2023, is maintainable against the domestic violence proceedings before the learned Magistrate. +2 more

Court's answer

Following the Full Bench decision in Arul Daniel v. Suganya (2022 SCC Online Mad 5435), a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash domestic violence proceedings is not maintainable unless the Judicial Magistrate has no inherent jurisdiction to entertain the Domestic Violence Case; since the domestic relationship between the parties is admitted and, in view of the averments in the complaint, the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction, this Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable.

Ratio / Principle

The revision petitioners are at liberty to file an application before the learned Magistrate concerned, who shall decide it on merits in accordance with law dehors this Order; if dismissed, the remedy is an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and only against the order passed therein can a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 be preferred.

Key takeaways

On the prayer to dispense with the personal appearance of the 2nd revision petitioner, the revision petitioners are at liberty to raise the request before the learned Magistrate, who is to consider the matter bearing in mind that the 2nd revision petitioner is the father of the first revision petitioner, stated to be aged about 89.ratio¶39
Following High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. (2024 INSC 150), that Constitutional Courts shall issue directions for time bound disposal of cases to other courts only in exceptional circumstances, the Court declined the respondent's request for a time-bound disposal direction.ratio¶43
Considering the age of the 2nd revision petitioner, the learned Magistrate may dispose of the case in an expeditious manner, and both parties are directed to co-operate with the learned Magistrate for the same.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (R. SakthivEL, J., 10.01.2025) dismissed CRP No. 2402 of 2023 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking to call for the records of DVC No. 2 of 2023 before the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kilvelur. Relying on the Full Bench ruling in Arul Daniel v. Suganya (2022 SCC Online Mad 5435) that a revision under Article 227 to quash domestic violence proceedings should not be resorted to unless the Judicial Magistrate lacks inherent jurisdiction, and finding the domestic relationship admitted and jurisdiction present on the complaint averments, the Court held the CRP not maintainable. The petitioners were left at liberty to move the learned Magistrate, with appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and thereafter Article 227 revision as successive remedies. The plea to dispense with the personal appearance of the 2nd revision petitioner (father of the 1st petitioner, stated to be aged about 89) was left to the Magistrate's consideration. The respondent's request for a time-bound disposal direction was rejected on the authority of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. (2024 INSC 150), with an observation that the Magistrate may dispose of the case expeditiously and both parties cooperate. CRP dismissed; no order as to costs; connected CMPs (including CMP No. 15032 of 2023) closed.