BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.08.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR CRP PD(MD).No.1060 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6199 and 6200 of 2021 1. M.Sukumar 2. M.Seethalakshmi 3. M.Duraipandi 4.Bhagavathi : Petitioners/Respondents Vs. 1.R.Suvitha 2.Minor Sairam 3.Minor Sai Lakshmanan : Respondents /Petitioners (Minor respondents 2 & 3 are represented by their mother and natural guardian/first respondent) PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the proceedings made in D.V.C.No.9 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Sathiyananthan O R D E R The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking orders to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
CRP PD(MD).No.1060 of 2021 and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6199 and 6200 of 2021
1. M.Sukumar
2. M.Seethalakshmi
3. M.Duraipandi
4.Bhagavathi : Petitioners/Respondents
Vs.
1.R.Suvitha
2.Minor Sairam
3.Minor Sai Lakshmanan : Respondents /Petitioners
(Minor respondents 2 & 3 are represented by their mother and natural guardian/first respondent)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, to set aside the proceedings made in D.V.C.No.9 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Sathiyananthan

O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking orders to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.
2.Admittedly, the marriage between the first petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 22.11.2015 and that due to their wedlock, they had two male children. Admittedly, the second petitioner is the mother, third petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner and the fourth petitioner is the wife of the third petitioner.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner has filed a petition before the Sub Court Virudhunagar, claiming divorce against the first respondent and that after receiving the summons, the first respondent has purposely initiated the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act with sole intention to harass the petitioners. He would further submit that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance against the petitioners, since no domestic incident report as contemplated under Rule 5 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules had been given by the Protection Officer or Service Provider, that except the first petitioner, other petitioners have never resided with the first respondent at any point of time, that the allegations levelled by the first respondent against the petitioners are vague and are not sufficient to attract the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and that therefore, the proceedings in D.V.C.No.9 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar is to be quashed.
4. No doubt, the petitioners, as per the judgment of this Court rendered by Hon’ble Mr.Justice.N.Anand Venkatesh., in Crl.O.P.Nos. 28458, 16411, 33643 of 2019 (Batch), have filed the revision, by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in Article 227 of Constitution of India. In the said judgment, Hon’ble Judge has laid down certain guidelines and procedures to be followed /complied with by the litigant and the Court, while dealing with the complaint initiated under the
Domestic Violence Act.
5.In the present case, the petitioners have not approached the learned Magistrate as per the guidelines issued, but they have straightaway approached this Court hurriedly. It is pertinent to note that when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the Tribunals and Courts or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted, High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6.It is settled law that the High Court cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the proceedings or orders of Tribunals and Courts nor can it act as a Court of appeal. The existence of alternative mode of redressal would operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court. To put it in short, the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. In the case on hand, assuming for a moment, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the trial Court, it cannot be said that the same would result in miscarriage of justice.
Considering the above, this Court is not inclined to admit the Revision.
7. It is pertinent to mention that in the guidelines issued in the above Judgment, it has been specifically observed that personal appearance of the petitioners shall not be ordinarily insisted upon, if the parties are effectively represented through counsel and that Form VII of Domestic Violence Act, 2006, makes it clear that the parties can appear before the Magistrate either in person or through duly authorised counsel. Moreover, even if the petitioners fail to appear either in person or through their counsel, the Magistrate can proceed only to set exparte and then, proceed to decide the application. Considering the above, it is clear that it is not mandatory for the revision petitioners to appear personally for all the hearings.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the revision petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned Judicial Magistrate, as per the guidelines issued in the Judgment above referred. Further, the learned Judicial Magistrate is directed not to insist the personal appearance of the petitioners as per the guidelines referred above, for the hearings in which the personal appearance of the petitioners is not necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP(MD)No.6199 of 2021, is closed and CMP(MD)No.6200 of 2021 is allowed.
04.08.2021
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No das
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar.
2.The Section Officer (VR Section) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.
das
CRP PD(MD).No.1060 of 2021 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6199 and 6200 of 2021
04.08.2021