CRP(PD)(MD)No.137 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 23.01.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

CRP(PD)(MD)No.137 of 2023 and

CMP(MD) Nos.631 & 632 of 2023

1.R.Gopinath

2.R.Maheshwari

3.V.Ramamoorthy

... Petitioners

Vs

D.Mahalakshmi

... Respondent

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to

strike off the impugned proceedings of D.V.O.P.No.3 of 2022, on the

file of the learned Magistrate Court, Palani, Dindigul District and set

aside the same.

For Petitioners

: Mr.C.Gangai Amaran

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the

proceedings initiated by the respondent herein in D.V.O.P.No.3 of 2022,

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(PD)(MD)No.137 of 2023

on the file of the learned Magistrate Court, Palani, Dindigul District.

The petitioners herein are the respondents in D.V.O.P.No.3 of 2022.

2. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, in the reference

made in Crl.O.P.SR.Nos.31852 of 2022, etc. (batch), dated 17.11.2022,

has answered as follows:

“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 the corrective

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(PD)(MD)No.137 of 2023

mechanism available to the aggrieved parties before the

Magistrate, and then by way of an appeal under Section

29 of the Act.”

3. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court has also held that

the personal appearance of the parties shall not be insisted upon, if the

parties are effectively represented through a counsel. The relevant

portion is extracted as under:

“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).”

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP(PD)(MD)No.137 of 2023

4. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the

proceedings initiated by the respondent herein, under Sections 18, 19,

20,21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 and not filed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, this

Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable before this Court, as per the

decision rendered by the Hon'ble Full Bench (cited supra). However,

this Court is inclined to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition 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 Magist