The power of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked on a limited ground of patent lack of jurisdiction. Magistrates must confine the inquiry to persons whose presence is proper and necessary for granting reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records in D.V.C.No.5 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur and strike off the same.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed, invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking orders to call for the records in D.V.C.No.5 of 2023 pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur and strike off the same.

2. The first respondent, for herself and on behalf of her minor son has filed a petition under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act against her husband and in-laws. The learned Magistrate, after taking the petition on file in D.V.C.No.5 of 2023, has issued summons to the petitioners to appear before the said Court. Challenging the issuance of summons, the petitioners have preferred the present Civil Revision.

3. Admittedly, the first petitioner is the husband, the second petitioner is the father-in-law, the third petitioner is the mother-in-law, the fourth petitioner is the sister-in-law and the fifth petitioner is the brotherin- law of the first respondent.

4. The main complaint of the petitioners is that the petitioners 2 to 5, who have no connection whatever with the disputes raised by the first respondent, have been implicated purposely and wantonly with an intention to harass them and to make unlawful gain if possible, that the first respondent has not shown any material that she was subjected to domestic violence by the petitioners and that therefore, the very petition filed by the respondents is liable to be quashed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Arul Daniel and others Vs. Suganya and others reported in 2023 Cri. LJ 339, the Magistrate has no power or jurisdiction to issue any summons to a respondent(s) therein under Section 61 Cr.P.C. and despite specific directions of the Hon'ble Full Bench to issue notice for the appearance in Form VII appended to the D.V. Rules, 2006 and in the manner prescribed under Section 13 of the Act and Rule 12(2) of the D.V. Rules, the learned Magistrate has acted in total violation of the directions of this Court and that therefore, the issuance of the summons warrants interference of this Court.

6. No doubt, the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, while answering the reference, has specifically held that Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has no application for challenging a proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, but Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked and it is necessary to refer the following passages hereunder:-

“40 The next question is whether the proceedings under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act can be assailed by way of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Indubitably, the power of judicial review under the said provision is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. After the decision of the Constitution Bench in L.Chandra Kumar v Union of India 27 , it is no longer open to doubt that the power of judicial review under Articles 226/227 cannot be taken away even by a constitutional amendment, let alone by a statute. Nevertheless, the existence of power is one thing and the exercise of power is quite another. Though the power of superintendence under Article 227 over the proceedings of the Magistrate under the D.V. Act exists, its exercise would, no doubt, be conditioned on certain very salutary principles one of which is that a High Court will not exercise its power of superintendence if there exists an efficacious alternative remedy.

41 As has been adverted to, supra, the legislature has very thoughtfully provided an appellate remedy, under Section 31 of the D.V. Act, before the Court of Session against an order of the Magistrate. The existence of an appellate remedy would almost always be a “near total bar”