Sudheer Vs Priya — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Sudheer Vs Priya — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Revision Petition disposed of without deciding the jurisdictional objection, liberty reserved to the petitioners to canvass jurisdiction before the trial court at trial; personal appearance before the trial court dispensed with except on specified occasions (receipt of proceedings copy u/s 230 BNSS, framing of charges, questioning under Section 351 BNSS, judgment day), with trial-court discretion to summon when necessary; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the D.V.C. No.06 of 2020 proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, are open to objection on the ground of jurisdiction, the petitioners attacking them solely on that ground. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court did not adjudicate the jurisdictional objection; it granted the petitioners liberty to canvass the jurisdictional point before the trial court at the time of trial.

Ratio / Principle

Personal appearance of the petitioners before the trial court is dispensed with, except for receipt of the copy of proceedings u/s 230 of BNSS, framing of charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS, and the day of pronouncement of judgment.

Key takeaways

If for any particular reason the presence of the petitioners is found necessary, the trial court shall direct their appearance on such days at its own wisdom/discretion.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), M.Dhandapani, J. — C.R.P.(MD)No.1283 of 2021 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, disposed of on 13.06.2025. Petitioners (husband Sudheer and family members) sought to strike off D.V.C. No.06 of 2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, filed by respondent-wife Priya after matrimonial discord; the sole ground urged was jurisdiction, the husband hailing from Kerala State and the wife from Kanniyakumari District while the DVC was initiated at Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. The Court disposed of the revision without ruling on jurisdiction, expressly reserving liberty to the petitioners to canvass the jurisdictional point before the trial court at trial. Personal appearance before the trial court was dispensed with, save for receipt of the copy of proceedings u/s 230 of BNSS, framing of charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and the day fixed for pronouncement of judgment, the trial court retaining discretion to direct appearance whenever necessary. No costs; connected C.M.P.(MD)Nos.7420 and 7421 of 2021 closed.

C.R.P.(MD)No.1283 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 13.06.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

C.R.P.(MD)No.1283 of 2021

and

C.M.P.(MD)Nos.7420 & 7421 of 2021

1.Sudheer 2.Nirmala

3.Sadasivam

...Petitioners

Vs.

1.Priya 2.Minor Anuj

3.Minor Ariya

...Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to call for the records and strike off the proceeding / petition in D.V.C. No.06 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District, filed by the respondent herein.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Veilmuthu

For Respondent No.1 : Mr.D.Dhana Chandra Prakash

1/5

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

C.R.P.(MD)No.1283 of 2021

ORDER

This petition has been filed seeking to strike off the proceedings / petition in D.V.C. No.06 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District, filed by the respondent herein.

2. The first petitioner and the first respondent are husband and wife. Out of their wedlock they have two children. Due to some matrimonial dispute, the first respondent / wife filed D.V.C. No.06 of 2020, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed solely on the ground that the first petitioner / husband belongs to Kerala State and the first respondent / wife belongs to Kanniyakumari District, whereas the DVC proceedings are initiated before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. Hence, the petitioners attack the DVC proceedings mainly on the ground of jurisdiction. Learned Counsel also requests this Court to dispense with their personal appearance before the trial court.

4. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, their appearance before the trial court is dispensed with, except for

2/5

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

C.R.P.(MD)No.1283 of 2021

their appearance for the purpose of receiving the copy of the proceedings u/s 230 of BNSS, framing of charges, questioning under Section 351 of BNSS and on the day on which judgment is to be pronounced. However, if for any particular reason, the presence of the petitioners is necessary, the trial court, at its wisdom, shall direct for their appearance on those days. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to canvas the jurisdictional point before the trial court at the time of trial.

5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

13.06.2025

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No MR

3/5

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

C.R.P.(MD)No.1283 of 2021

To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

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

C.R.P.(MD)No.1283 of 2021

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

MR

C.R.P.(MD)No.1283 of 2021

13.06.2025

5/5

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