B.Selvakumar v. S.Samundeeshwari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.12.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Civil Revision Petition No.4446 of 2023 and C.M.P. Nos. 26871 & 26871 of 2023 --- 1.B. Selvakumar
2. S.Ramani
3. S.Chandrasekaran ... Petitioner
Versus
1.S.Samundeeshwari
2. S.Mohan Raj
...Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed Under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the D.V.C.No. 58 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Erode.
For Petitioner :
Mr. B.Mohan
O R D E R
The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the D.V.C.No. 58 of 2022 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, Erode. 1\5
2. Heard, Mr.B.Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in laws of the respondent / complainant, against whom she lodged a complaint, stating that they were harrased her and not permitted to live in the matrimonial home. He further submitted that the petitioners have no way connected with the alleged matrimonial dispute, hence he prays to exist in the proceedings.
4.On seeing the facts that, now the case is ripe for trial and P.W.1 was examined and the matter become parted. At this stage it cannot be entertained and liberty is granted to the petitioners to prefer all the defence before the trial Court. However, the proceeding are considered as like Civil in nature. The appearance of the parties are ordered to be dispensed with.
5. Considering the above, the petitioners are entitled to approach the concerned Magistrate Court itself and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall decide the same as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme 2\5
Court in Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another reported in (2016) 11 SCC 774.
6. On considering the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the clear view that the petitioners have not shown any legal ground or reason to quash the complaint and hence, this Court concludes that the Civil Revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Regarding the petitioners' prayer for dispensing with their personal appearance, it is necessary to refer the following direction in Arul Daniel's case above referred, "76. .....
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)." 3\5
8. The Hon'ble Full Bench has reiterated the legal position that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are Civil in nature and as such, the respondent in the Domestic Violence complaint cannot be considered as accused and there is absolutely no need or necessity for them to appear for each and every hearing before the learned Magistrate. Hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed not to insist the appearance of the petitioners/respondents on every hearings, but at the same time, the learned Magistrate is at liberty to direct the petitioners/ respondents to appear if their appearance is necessary.
9. With the above observation and direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order rri To
1. The Additional Mahila Court, Erode.
4\5
2.The Section Officer, VR-Section, High Court of Madras.
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri Civil Revision Petition No.4446 of 2023 and C.M.P. Nos. 26871 & 26871 of 2023 13.12.2023 5\5