IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.07.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.R.C.No.460 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.4784 of 2022

1. Murugan

2. Mallika

3. Devi

4. Anbazhagan ... Petitioners Vs.

M.Lakshmi ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.8336 of 2021 in D.V.C.No.94 of 2019 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Balaji For Respondent : Mr.Balaji Thirummourthi

O R D E R

The criminal revision case is filed by the petitioners against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.8366 of 2021 in D.V.C.No.94 of 2019. 2. The first petitioner is the husband and the petitioners 2 to 4 are the family members of the first petitioner. The respondent is the wife of the first petitioner. The respondent / wife filed D.V.C.No.94 of 2019 seeking for protection under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and for maintenance under Section 20 of the Act and for custody of the children under Section 21 of the Act and also for compensation under Section 22 of the Act. The said domestic violence case was allowed with directions to the first petitioner / husband to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and damages for the injuries sustained by the respondent /

wife and also granted visitation rights.

3. Against the said DVC, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.8336 of

2021 seeking to set aside the exparte order. The said petition was dismissed by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, against which, the present criminal revision has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order stating that the Court below ought to have taken into consideration that the minor children are in the custody of the first petitioner and that G.W.O.P.No.5310 of 2019 filed by the first petitioner to appoint him as a guardian for the minor children is pending before the learned VII Additional Family Court, Chennai. He also submitted that due to COVID-19, he was unable to appear before the Court below in DVC proceedings and that the Court below ought to have seen that the petitioners 3 and 4 are no way connected with the alleged domestic violence and the entire family of the first petitioner has been roped in the case by the respondent. He further submitted that, the non-appearance of the petitioners was neither willful nor wanton, but only due to the treatment and the prevailing unavoidable circumstances at the time of proceedings in DVC. Therefore, he submits that the Court below ought to have given one more opportunity to the petitioners to represent and put forth their case before the Court below. Hence, he prays that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent / wife submits that though several opportunities was given to the petitioners either to appear in person or to engage the counsel, they have neither appeared in person nor filed any written statement before the Court below in order to substantiate their cases and therefore, they cannot now plead no sufficient opportunity was provided to represent their case.

6. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials placed before this Court.

7. The relationship between the parties are not in dispute. The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent has come under strain and there has been claims and counter claims between them. The DVC proceedings was initiated by the respondent / wife against the first petitioner. Since the first petitioner and others did not appear before the Court below in the DVC proceedings consecutively even after affirming several opportunities, the Court below passed an exparte order on 23.04.2021, against which, the petitioners