IMPORTANT POINT
The importance of a full-fledged trial in determining allegations of domestic violence and the need to consider only those persons whose presence is 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 set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.604 of 2023 in D.V.C.No.7 of 2022 dated 20.07.2023 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari, by allowing this revision.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.604 of 2023 in D.V.C.No.7 of 2022 dated 20.07.2023 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Singampunari, dismissing the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The respondent as complainant has filed a petition under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act claiming the reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the said Act against her husband and in-laws/revision petitioners herein and the same was taken on file in D.V.C.No.7 of 2022 and the same is pending on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Singampunari.

3. It is not in dispute that the marriage between the respondent and one Anand was solemnized on 18.10.2020. Admittedly, the revision petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents and the revision petitioners 3 and 4 are the sisters of the said Anand, husband of the respondent.

4. The revision petitioners/respondents 2 to 5 in the D.V.C. complaint have filed a revision earlier in C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.239 of 2023 invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking orders to strike off the complaint in D.V.C.No.7 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari and a learned Judge of this Court, vide order dated 02.02.2023, has disposed of the revision in the following terms:

“(i) If the petitioners are having any grievance that they have been unnecessarily added as parties to the proceedings, it is open to them to file an application before the learned Magistrate to delete their names and if any such application is filed, the learned Magistrate 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.

(ii) If the petitioners are represented through a counsel, the learned Magistrate 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 Magistrate is directed to dispose of D.V.C.No.7 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

5. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, the revision petitioners have filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.604 of 2023 seeking orders to discharge them from the alleged offences punishable under Sections 12, 18(a), 18(e), 19(8), 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. The respondent has filed a counter statement raising serious objections. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 dismissing the said petition. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the present revision came to be filed.

6. The revision petitioners, in their affidavit filed in support of the petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., have stated that the respondent has raised full of imaginary fairy tale stories while suppressing the real facts, that the respondent has raised false and frivolous allegations against the revision petitioners, that the respondent's husband Anand has been working in Canada, that the said Anand having intention to live with the respondent has filed a petition claiming restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending in H.M.O.P.No.166 of 2022 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Melur, that the respondent's earlier complaints given to the police were closed as there were no merits, that the respondent's father had instigated the husbands of the revision petitioners 3 and 4, who in turn sent their wives to their parents home