A.Jiju Antony v. Maria Diana Gladish
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 01.12.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI and CMP(MD)Nos. 4074 and 4076 of 2022 1.A.Jiju Antony 2.A.Arulraj 3.Jacqueline 4.Rithu Martini Pushpa 5.Antony Saviour Raj ... Petitioners Vs., Maria Diana Gladish ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining impugned proceedings filed by the respondent in DVC.No.58 of 2021 on the file of Additional Mahila Court, Thanjavur and set aside the same. For Petitioners : Mr. R.Maheswaran For Respondent : Mr.V.S.Kumaraguru 1/6
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the proceedings initiated by the respondent herein in D.V.C.No.58 of 2021 before the Additional Mahila Court, Thanjavur. The first petitioner is the husband of the respondents and the petitioners 2 to 5 are her in-laws.
2. Though the petitioners have raised a ground of jurisdiction, they have not substantiated the same as to how the concerned Additional Mahila Court, is not having the jurisdiction to take up the complaint of the respondent.
3. Further, Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, deals with the jurisdiction, which reads as follows:
27. Jurisdiction - (1) The Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which - 2/6
(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or (b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or (c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act (2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.
4. From the reading of the above said provision, it is clear that the petition under the Domestic Violence Act can be filed in a Court where the "person aggrieved" permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed.
5. In the present case, the respondent herein is residing along with her parents at Thanjavur. Therefore, the Additional Mahila Court, Thanjavur, is the competent Court to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent under Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, the objection 3/6
raised by the petitioners that the Additional Mahila Court, Thanjavur, is not having jurisdiction, cannot be acceptable.
6. If the petitioners are having any grievance that they have been unnecessarily added as party to the proceedings, it is open to them to file an application before the concerned Court to delete their name from the proceedings.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the following terms:
(i) If the petitioners are having any grievance that they have been unnecessarily added as a party to the proceedings, it is open to them to file an application before the learned Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Thanjauvr, to delete their name and if any such application is filed, the learned Judge shall decide the same, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunapareddy v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 774.
4/6
(ii) If the petitioners are represented through a counsel, the learned Judge shall not insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners. However, the petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when their presence is required by the Court.
(iii) The learned Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Thanjavur, is directed to dispose of D.V.C.No.58 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 01.12.2022 rmk/tta Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes / No.
To The Judge, Additional Mahila Court, Thanjavur. 5/6
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
rmk/tta 01.12.2022 6/6