Advocates:
['M/S N SURESH', '', 'S GOPINATH', 'B ANAND KUMAR', 'M SUBRAMANI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 22.01.2018

DELIVERED ON : 22.01.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

Crl.R.C.No.51 of 2018

and

Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2018

1.Sandeep Kumar

2.Ramesh Kumar

3.Sangeetha Devi

...Petitioners

Vs

Padma Bai @ Rekha

...Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of

Cr.P.C., against the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the

learned VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in

M.P.No.1125 of 2017 in D.V.C.No.30 of 2015.

For Petitioners

:

Mr.N.Suresh

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Revision Petition is preferred by the

petitioners/respondents against the order passed by the Learned

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai in

Crl.M.P.No.1125 of 2017 in D.V.C.No.30 of 2015 wherein the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the restoration of the

D.V.C.No.30 of 2015 which was dismissed for default.

2.Brief case of the petitioners:

The respondent namely Padma Bai @ Rekha, Wife of

Sandeepkumar filed the domestic violence petition against her

husband, the 1^st Petitioner herein, father-in-law, mother-in-law,

the 2^nd and 3^rd Petitioners in the revision petition. The

D.V.O.P. is filed for compensation and various reliefs under

section 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of the Women

Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3.The learned Magistrate issued summons to the

petitioners/respondents herein and posted the case for the

appearance of the respondent/petitioner. The case was adjourned

for several times due to non appearance of the respondent.

Finally the D.V.O.P.No.30 of 2015 was dismissed for default on

15.12.2017.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed the

application for restoration in Crl.M.P.No.1125 of 2017 under

Order 9 Rule 9 of C.P.C. r/w 25(2) of the Domestic Violence Act.

The respondents filed their objections and after hearing both

parties, the learned trial judge allowed the application. Hence,

this criminal revision is filed challenging the order passed by

the learned trial Judge in Crl.M.P.No.1125 of 2017 dated

13.11.2017.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

learned Magistrate erred in stating that though the reasons for

non appearance stated was not acceptable, the M.P.No.1125 of

2017 in D.V.C.No.30 of 2015 is allowed under section 25(2) of

D.V Act in order to give a chance to the respondent to proceed

further in the main D.V.C.No.30 of 2015.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

learned Magistrate failed to see the reason given for non

appearance, that separate Court has been constituted for

domestic violence cases and all pending cases would be

transferred from this Court to the D.V.C. Court at Egmore,

Chennai is very vague and, in any event cannot be a reason for

non appearance, despite the specific stand being taken in the

common counter of the revision petitioners herein.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

learned Magistrate failed to see that according to the section

29 of the Protection of the Women Domestic Violence Act, 2005 an

appeal shall lie to the Court of session within thirty days from

the date on which the order made by the magistrate is served on

the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be

whichever is later and hence the order passed is without

jurisdiction.

8.I heard Mr.N.Suresh, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and perused the entire materials available on record.

9.Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in

the case particularly in view of various provisions contained in

the Protection of the Women Domestic Violence Act, 2005,

according to me, this Court need not entertain the revision

against the order passed in Crl.M.P and the