Article 227 cannot strike off domestic violence proceedings absent patent lack of jurisdiction.

The first respondent initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners, who are her in-laws, her husband (the second respondent), and another party, seeking various reliefs.

The petitioners alleged that they had been joined only to harass them and sought, under Article 227 of the Constitution, to strike off the proceedings against them.

The High Court considered whether their grievance should be addressed in the pending proceedings before the Magistrate.

1. Whether the High Court should strike off the Domestic Violence Act proceedings against the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Whether the petitioners could seek deletion of their names from the array of respondents by applying to the Magistrate.

Article 227 permits the High Court to strike off proceedings where the subordinate court suffers from a patent lack of jurisdiction; it is not the appropriate route for resolving the petitioners’ complaint in the circumstances presented.

In Arul Daniel & others v. Suganya & others, 2022 (6) CTC 833, the Full Bench held that a respondent in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act may apply to the Magistrate, at any stage, for deletion from the array of parties if improperly joined.

The Magistrate may exercise the power under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to prevent abuse of process and harassment through improper joinder.

The Court also referred to Kunapareddy as supporting the procedural flexibility of applications under the Act.

The petitioners’ allegation that they were improperly joined did not establish a patent lack of jurisdiction in the Magistrate, so the exceptional basis for striking off the proceedings under Article 227 was absent.

Applying the Full Bench guidance in Arul Daniel, the Court held that the petitioners could pursue their grievance through an application to the Magistrate for deletion of their names, where the issue could be decided on its merits after hearing both parties.

Any such application is to be decided on its merits and in accordance with law after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard; the petitioners may appear through counsel, and their personal presence was dispensed with.