P.Lingeswaran v. T.Sabarimanju
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 09/02/2024
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN C.R.P(MD)No.1069 of 2023 and CMP(MD)Nos.5011 and 5012 of 2023 1.P.Lingeswaran 2.Palanisamy 3.Kiriji 4.Kesavamangai : Petitioners/Respondents Vs.
T.Sabari Manju : Respondent/Petitioner PRAYER:-Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the petition in DVOP No.21 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani, Dindigul District and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioners : M/s.J.Balameenakshi For Respondent : Mr.D.Venkatesh
O R D E R
This civil revision petition has been filed seeking to strike off the petition in DVOP No.21 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani, Dindigul District.
1/14
2.Heard both sides.
3.Let me extract the relevant portion of the judgment reported in the case of Arul Danial Vs. Suganya (2022(3)MWN (CR.)539(FB):- "7.The Division Bench, in P.Ganesan, supra, has categorically and correctly restated the legal position, in two places that the proceedings under the D.V. Act are civil in nature. For the sake of convenience, we are extracting those portions from P.
Ganesan, supra.
"15 (o) To sum up:
(i) As we have already held that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are civil in nature.............
16 (c) We have already held that the proceedings under Chapter IV of the Domestic Violence Act are civil in nature.........."
8.We concur with the above view of Anand Venkatesh, J., as affirmed by the Division Bench in P.Ganesan, supra.
However, after saying so, the Division Bench, in P.Ganesan, supra, found itself 2/14
in disagreement with the opinion of Anand Venkatesh, J. that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a D.V. proceedings is not maintainable and has given a contrary opinion which is as under:
"N. Anand Venkatesh, J. held that the Magistrate while adjudicating Civil rights cannot be called Criminal Court. We do not agree with this view of the learned Judge, firstly because the Parliament intended to deliberately confer Jurisdiction on the Criminal Court. An appeal is also provided to the Court of Sessions and not to the District Judge. Secondly, the learned Judge relied upon a number of cases to hold that where the Magistrate is conferred power to grant reliefs of Civil nature he cannot be called to a 'Criminal Court'. We find that in all the Judgments referred by the learned Judge, the Courts have held that the Magistrate was not a Court when he was exercising Ministerial/Administrative functions and not a criminal Court when he was following the procedure stipulated under the Special Act which gave his power and not under Cr.
P.C.. Therefore, in our view those Judgments cannot be relied upon to hold that the Magistrate is not a criminal Court while dealing with an Application under 12 of the Domestic Violence Act.
the nature of the procedure adopted would determine the character of the Tribunal. There is no doubt that the Magistrate dealing with proceedings under Domestic Violence Act is a Criminal Court who has to follow the procedure under Cr.P.C., exception being provided under Section 28
(2) of the Act." (emphasis supplied) 9.From a reading of the aforesaid, we are able to infer that albeit the fact that D.V. proceedings initiated on an application under Section 12 are civil proceedings, the Magistrate is nonetheless a Criminal Court as the procedure he is required to follow is one under the Code of Criminal Procedure. To put it more precisely, according to the Division Bench, it is not the substantive law, but the procedural law that determines the character of the Court of the Magistrate. This is where, in our considered opinion, with due respect, the Division Bench appears to have fallen in error."
4.These are the directions issued, while entertaining the petition under Domestic Violence Act. So the petitioners can very well invoke those directions before the trial court itself.
4/14
5.Similarly regarding the appearance of the parties before the trial court, para (iv) may be extracted herein:- "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)"
6.In view of the above said directions, the parties are at liberty to approach the concerned trial court itself for dispensing their appearance, of course with the above said limitation.
7.In the light of the above said statement of law, now we will go to the another aspect.
8.As stated in the Full Court Judgement, even though, petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C will not 5/14
lie, Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked on a specific plea and circumstance.
9.Let me extract the relevant portion:- "xiv.A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution may still be maintainable if it is shown that the proceedings before the Magistrate suffer from a patent lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under Article 227 is one of superintendence and is visitorial in nature and will not be exercised unless there exists a clear jurisdictional error and that manifest or substantial injustice would be caused if the power is not exercised in favour of the petitioner. (See Abdul Razak v Mangesh Rajaram Wagle (2010) 2 SCC 432, Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v Tuticorin Educational Society (2019) 9 SCC 538). In normal circumstances, the power under Article 227 will not be exercised, as a measure of self-imposed restriction, in view of 6/14
the corrective mechanism available to the aggrieved parties before the Magistrate, and then by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the Act."
10.So in the light of the statement of law, now this civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.
11.Now we shall examine as to whether the petitioners satisfied the requirement of law namely;- (i)whether the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate is illegal, because of the patent lack of jurisdiction.
(ii)Whether there is any error in jurisdiction; and (iii)Whether there is any manifest or substantial injustice.
12.Now what is meant by jurisdiction error has also been elaborately discussed in the judgment. Let me extract the relevant portions:- 7/14
"25.At this juncture, it is necessary to notice that the word "jurisdiction" relates to the power of the Court to decide a class or classes of cases. The import of the expression has been considered by the Supreme Court in Nusli Neville Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties, 2020(6)SCC 557, wherein, it was observed as under:- "The word "jurisdiction" is derived from Latin words "juris" and "dico", meaning "I speak by the law" and does not relate to rights of parties as between each other but to the power of the court. Jurisdiction relates to a class of cases to which a particular case belongs. Jurisdiction is the authority by which a judicial officer takes cognizance and decides the cases.
It only presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court having control over subject-matter which comes within classification limits of the law under which court has been established. It 8/14
should have control over the parties'
litigant, control over the parties'
territory, it may also relate to pecuniary as well as the nature of the class of cases. Jurisdiction is generally understood as the authority to decide, render a judgment, inquire into the facts, to apply the law, and to pronounce a judgment. When there is the want of general power to act, the court has no jurisdiction. When the court has the power to inquire into the facts, apply the law, render binding judgment, and enforce it, the court has jurisdiction.
Judgment within a jurisdiction has to be immune from collateral attack on the ground of nullity. It has co-relation with the constitutional and statutory power of tribunal or court to hear and determine.
It means the power or capacity fundamentally to entertain, hear, and determine." (emphasis supplied) 26 In view of the above, the power of the Magistrate to entertain and decide an 9/14
application under Section 12 and grant one or more reliefs under the D.V.
Act is an aspect of his jurisdiction. It is settled law that jurisdiction is an issue that belongs to the realm of substantive law. Procedural law, on the other hand, prescribes the mode and manner in which such jurisdiction is to be exercised. A character of the Court is an essential aspect of its substantive jurisdiction, and would depend on the nature or subject matter of the case before it.
26.In view of the above, the power of the Magistrate to entertain and decide an Application under Section 12 and grant one or more reliefs under the D.V. Act is an aspect of his jurisdiction. It is settled law that jurisdiction is an issue that belongs to the realm of substantive law. Procedural law, on the other hand, prescribes the mode and manner in which such jurisdiction is to be exercised. A 10/14
character of the Court is an essential aspect of its substantive jurisdiction, and would depend on the nature or subject matter of the case before it.
13.So absolutely, the petitioners cannot say that there is inherent lack of jurisdiction in view of the above said statement of law.
14.Now we will examine the factual aspect.
15.Cognizance was taken on the basis of the report submitted by the Protection Officer. The respondent appeared and her statement was recorded. Wherein, she has stated that the marriage between herself and her husband took place, on 14/11/2013. After the marriage, she was taken to the husband's working place by her husband. A male child was born, on 23/07/2014 and occasionally, the first petitioner namely the husband visiting her. Later, they demanded money. She was harassed by the in-laws. So because of the harassment made by the in laws, she left the matrimonial home. On the false information, the complaint was given by her husband. In the enquiry, they were advised to resolve the issue. When she went to her matrimonial home, she was driven out. The husband filed a 11/14
petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Even though, she was willing with her husband, on the false promise made by her husband, she discontinued her employment. Even now he is not visiting and taking care.
16.Now in the grounds, it has been simply stated that Social Welfare Officer, Dindigul did not make proper enquiry by summoning him. Without proper ground, the inlaws were also implicated. The respondent was also married to one Rajagopal. She got divorce. But that was not intimated to him.
17.Except these bald grounds, no other ground attracting the ingredients above mentioned are stated. So this civil revision petition deserves no consideration at all, of course with the above said liberty.
18.So none of the petitioners are able to convince this court that taking cognizance by the Magistrate concerned is without jurisdiction. So the ground on which, the petition filed is completely covers the direction issued in para 14. The petitioners can very well resort to the above said directions issued. 12/14
19.With the above said liberty, this civil revision petition stands disposed of without touching upon the merits of the matter. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
09/02/2024 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To, The Judicial Magistrate, Palani.
13/14
G.ILANGOVAN, J er C.R.P(MD)No.1069 of 2023 09/02/2024 14/14