Domestic Violence Act |  Personal Appearance Not Mandated in Every Hearing: Madras High Court

In a significant judgment dated 05.02.2024, the Madras High Court, presided over by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Murali Shankar, addressed critical issues pertaining to the jurisdiction and procedural aspects under the Domestic Violence Act. The court meticulously dissected the scope of judicial intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution in cases arising under the Domestic Violence Act.

The pivotal legal question revolved around the maintainability of a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 to quash a complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act. The court examined whether the High Court’s superintendence power under Article 227 could be invoked in such cases, especially considering the existence of alternative remedies.

The petitioner, involved in a domestic violence case, sought to strike off proceedings on grounds of vague allegations and questioned the jurisdiction. The complaint was initially filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, leading to the issuance of notice by the Magistrate.

Judicial Review Under Article 227: The court, referencing the Full Bench decision in Arul Daniel and others Vs. Suganya and others, clarified that while the High Court has the power of judicial review under Article 227, it is generally restrained, especially when an alternative remedy exists (Para 4, 5).

Role of Magistrate in DV Act Proceedings: Emphasizing the role of the Magistrate, the court directed that applications under the Domestic Violence Act must be scrutinized at the outset, limiting inquiries to relevant parties (Para 6, 7).

Personal Appearance in DV Cases: In a significant observation, the court noted that personal appearance of respondents in Domestic Violence Act proceedings is not mandatory if they are effectively represented by counsel. The Magistrate may only insist on personal appearance for compelling reasons (Para 10, 11).

The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, finding no substantial legal ground to quash the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act using Article 227. It also directed the Magistrate not to insist on the personal appearance of the petitioner/respondent in every hearing, thereby acknowledging the civil nature of such proceedings.

Date of Decision: 05.02.2024.

Pitchaikani vs Parithakani,