Govindaraj v. Swarnalakshmi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Civil Revision Petition No.285 of 2022 and M.P.No.1363 of 2022

1. Govindaraj,

2. Lakshmi Narayanan, 3.Srinivasamoorthy,

4. Raghavendran,

5. Jegan @ Jegan Mohan Rao ... Petitioners

Versus

1. Smt. Swarnalakshmi,

2. Sridhar, @ Sridharan,

3. Rajamani, 4.Vasanthi,

5. Geetha,

6. Sathyavathi,

7. Banu @ Banumathi,

8. Tulasikala ...Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in DVOP No.65 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court-cum-Fast Track 1/6

Court, Salem pending disposal and quash the same as against the petitioners alone and pass such orders accordingly.

For Petitioners : Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham Senior Counsel, For Mr. R.T. Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : Mr. S. Prabhu for R1 : R2 and R4 - Left : R3, R5 to R8 served - No Apperance ******

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings in DVOP No.65 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Salem pending disposal and quash the same as against the petitioners alone and pass such orders accordingly.

2. The Revision petitioners herein are the respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the DVOP No.65 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court-cumFast Track Court, Salem. The first respondent is the wife and the second respondent is the husband. The Marriage between the respondent 1 and 2 was held on 03.02.2022. Out of the marriage, one male child was born to them. 2/6

The first respondent herein has filed DVOP No.65 of 2020 againt the revision petitioners and others seeking protection under Section 18, Residence and Return of article, under Section 19, Maintenance under Section 20 and Compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The said DVOP was filed on October 21, 2020.

3. Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.T. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel on record for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners herein are the brothers of the 2nd respondent herein. It has been further submitted that there is a matrimonial dispute between the 1st and 2nd respondents, whereas the revision petitioners are no way connected in this case. Since the petitioners are the brothers of the second respondent, the first respondent has initiated the aforesaid DVOP case against them and others. Further, he submits that the revision petitioners have not committed any domestic violence against the 1st respondent as described in the petition and they are aged about more than 50 years. Hence, he seeks relief as prayed for.

3/6

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that the Revision petitioners and others have committed domestic violence against the first respondent. Hence, there is no need to quash the DVOP No.65 of 2020 and prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made on either side and perused the petition in DVOP No.65 of 2020, it is seen that the revision petitioners are the brothers of the 2nd respondent. The respondents 1 and 2 are the wife and the husband. In view of the domestice relations, the 1st respondent has initiated the DVOP No.65 of 2020 against her husband/ 2nd respondent herein and husband's brothers/the revision petitioner herein. As of now, the said DVOP No.65 of 2020 is at the stage of Trial which is pending since 2020 before the Additional Mahila Court-Cum-Fast Track Court, Salem. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the same.

6. However, this Court is of the view that the presence of the Revision petitioners is not necessary unless the Trial Court specifically 4/6

directs them to appear. Hence, this Court directs the learned Additional Mahila cum Fast Track Judge, Salem not to insist on the presence of the revision petitioners at every hearing except their presence deemed necessary for progress of the proceedings. In other words, the personal appearance of the revision petitioners before learned Additional Mahila cum Fast Track Judge, Salem, stands dispensed with.

7. Considering the age of the Revision petitioners and other respondents, the Trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the case in DVOP No.65 of 2020 expeditiously as early as possible.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

19.09.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No Lbm 5/6

R.SAKTHIVEL, J lbm To:

The Additional Mahila Court-Cum-Fast Track Court, Salem. Civil Revision Petition No.285 of 2022 and M.P.No.1363 of 2022 19.09.2025 6/6