High Court · 2025

C.R.P.No.1128 of 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.07.2025CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P.No.1128 of 20221.S.Saravanan2.S.Sundari3.S.Ravishankar4.Dhanalakshmi .. Petitioners Versus1.Sathya 2.Abinaya .. Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings made in D.V.C.No.9 of 2016 dated 01.08.2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District and quash the same.For Petitioners: Mr.B.RamprabuFor Respondents: Mr.Swamy SubramanianORDERThis civil revision petition challenges the taking on file of DVC.No.9 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Mannargudi.2. I heard Mr.B.Ramprabu for the civil revision petitioners and Mr.Swamy Subramanian for the respondents. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1128 of 20223. The first civil revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent. The second civil revision petitioner is the first petitioner’s mother and the mother-in-law of the first respondent and the grand mother of the second respondent. The third civil revision petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner and the brother-in-law of the first respondent. The fourth petitioner is the wife of the third petitioner.4. The first petitioner and the first respondent entered into matrimony on 14.09.2003. From the wedlock, the second respondent was born. Due to disputes and differences, the first petitioner and the first respondent separated. The second respondent is under the care and custody of the first respondent. On account of separation, the respondents are residing with the first respondent’s father. In and about the year 2016, the first respondent came to know that the first petitioner had entered into matrimony with one Rashiya Begum. This constrained her to initiate proceedings invoking the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She had sought for the following reliefs:“vjph;kDjhuiu tutiHj;J tprhhpj;J fPH;fz;l ghpfhu';fis mspj;J cj;juthf kDjhuh; kd;wj;ij gzpe;J ntz;Lfpwhh;/ gphpt[ 18d; fPH; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; xd;W Kjy; ehd;F tiu cs;sth;fs; vjph;kDjhuUila brhj;ij ntW ahU bgaUf;nfh fpuak; vd;fpw 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1128 of 2022bgahpnyh. ntW vt;tifapnyh vGjp itf;fnth. vt;tpy;y';fj;jpw;Fk; cl;gLj;j TlhJ vd;Wk;. kDjhuUf;F gphpt[ 18d; fPH; ghJfhg;g[ cj;jut[ tH';fpa[k;.2/ kDjhuh;fSf;F jdpna trpg;gjw;F nghJkhd trjpa[s;s jFe;j thlif tPl;ow;Fhpa thlifa[k; kw;Wk; vjph;kDjhuh; trKs;s rPjd bghUl;fisa[k; kDjhuUf;F jpUk;g tH';ft[k;. gphpt[ 19d; fPH; cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;FkhWk;.3/ ,uz;lhk; kDjhuhpd; fy;tp bryt[ ,d;Dk; rpwpJ fhyj;jpy; mtUila vjph;fhyj;jpy; Vw;glf;Toa taJf;Fhpa epiy. gog;g[ epiy. jpUkz epiy ,tw;iw fUj;jpy; bfhz;Lk;. nkYk; vt;tpj bghUshjhu trjpa[kpd;wp thH tHpa[kpd;wp fc;&l $Ptdk; bra;fpd;w jd;Dila mj;jpahthrpa njitfis epiuntw;w ,ayhj kDjhuh; xd;Wf;Fk; nrh;j;J gphpt[ 21d; fPH; vjph;kDjhyh; jyh U:/10.00.000- (U:gha; gj;J yl;rk;) tPjk; U:/20.00.000- (U:gha; ,UgJ yl;rk;) kDjhuh;fSf;F bghUshjhu cjtpahf tH';f ntz;Lk;.4/ ,sth; Fhe;ij mgpeah kDjhuh; xd;wpd; bghWg;gpy; jhd; ,Ug;ghh; vd;Wk;. me;j rl;l Fwpg;gpy; vjph;kDjhuh;fs; vt;tpj Fwf;fPLfSk; bra;a Tlhbjd;Wk;. gphpt[ 21d; fPH; cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;FkhW kDjhuh;fs; jug;gpy; kd;wj;ij gzpe;J ntz;lg;gLfpwJ/”5. Challenging the same, the present revision.6. The learned counsel for the petitioners pleads that the first respondent/wife had deserted the first petitioner as early as in the year 2006 and therefore, the presentation of the domestic violence complaint, after a decade, is baseless. He further urges that there are no specific 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1128 of 2022allegations of domestic violence and no explanation has been given by the wife for having approached the Magistrate Court after a decade. He further points out that the third petitioner was not even married the fourth respondent in the year 2006 and this in itself points out that the domestic violence complaint had been presented only in order to wreck vengeance on the petitioners' family. 7. Per contra, Mr.Swamy Subramanian points out that the domestic violence complaint inter alia seeks for the maintenance and as the first petitioner is the father of the second respondent, he is duty bound to maintain the wife and child. He draws my attention to specific averments in the petition that the first petitioner has entered into a matrimony with Rashiya Begum and this in itself would constitute domestic violence in terms of Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He states that the matrimony between the first petitioner and Rashiya Begum has been arranged by the petitioners 2 to 4 and therefore, they are also answerable for the claims of the respondents. 8. I have carefully considered the arguments of the counsels and have gone through the records.4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1128 of 20229. The averment whether the marriage between the first petitioner and one Rashiya Begum has gone through or not is a matter which has to be probed into only at the time of trial. As long as the relationship between the first petitioner and the first respondent is alive, it is not open to him to enter into matrimony with another person. 10. Apart from the marriage getting very crowded with the introduction of a third party, the presence of the second wife in itself would constitute, at the least, an emotional distress to the legally married first wife. Even emotional distress is covered within the meaning of Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act. 11. There are specific averments as against the second petitioner also. However, as against the third and fourth petitioners, the only averment is that they had facilitated the marriage of the first petitioner with the aforesaid Rashiya Begum. The mere fact that they were present during marriage does not mean that they have played a role in the said marriage. If that were to be the situation, any guest, who attends the wedding too, can be roped into as a respondent in a domestic violence complaint. Hence, I am inclined to consider this petition, insofar as the petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned. The condition precedent that 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1128 of 2022the person, who abets the husband in acts of domestic violence, is not satisfied, insofar as the petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the revision partially succeeds. The domestic violence complaint initiated against the third and fourth petitioners alone stands quashed. It shall proceed as against the first and second petitioners. 13. The second petitioner, being a senior citizen of about 66 years today, her presence before the Magistrate is dispensed with. She shall, however, be represented by a counsel on all hearing dates. She shall be present, when so directed by the Magistrate Court, or when her presence is indispensable. The said benefit will not enure in favour of the first petitioner.11.07.2025nlIndex: yes/noSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: yes/noTo6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1128 of 20221.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.1128 of 2022V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.nl C.R.P.No.1128 of 202211.07.20258/8