Dilipan v. Sai Sarvani

ORDER 1 of 6 This civil revision petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by the respondent against the petitioner under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

¶2The petitioner is husband of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the averments made in the complaint are false, baseless and unsubstantiated and the same has been filed only to grab money from the petitioner. He further submitted that the averments made in the complaint did not make any prima facie case against the petitioner and hence, the Magistrate ought not to have issued process to the petitioner.

¶3In view of the Law settled by this Court in Arul Daniel and Others Versus Suganya reported in (2022) SCC Online Mad 5435, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, it is for him to move the very same Magistrate raising preliminary issues. The relevant observation of Full Bench reads as follows:- 2 of 6 87(vii). As there is no issuance of process as contemplated under Section 204, Cr.P.C. in a proceeding under the D.V. Act, the principle laid down in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal ((2004) 7 SCC 338) that a process, under Section 204, Cr.P.C, once issued cannot be reviewed or recalled, will not apply to a proceeding under the D.V. Act. Consequently, it would be open to an aggrieved respondent (s) to approach the Magistrate and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues. Issues like the existence of a shared household/domestic relationship etc., which form the jurisdictional basis for entertaining an application under Section 12, can be determined as a preliminary issue, in appropriate cases. Any person aggrieved by such an order may also take recourse to an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act for effective redress (See V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu V., (2010) 87 AIC 367). This would stem the deluge of petitions challenging the maintainability of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, at the threshold before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, this court is not inclined to exercise its Supervisory Power available under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off the complaint. 3 of 6

¶4Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The petitioner is at liberty to move the concerned Magistrate for getting appropriate remedy as per law laid down in Arul Daniel case.

¶5Taking into consideration the proceedings initiated before learned Magistrate is predominantly civil in nature, the personal appearance of the petitioner during enquiry before Magistrate is dispensed with, unless his personal appearance is absolutely necessary.

03.12.2025 Internet: yes Index: Yes/No MST To The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. 4 of 6 5 of 6

S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No.4152 of 2025

03.12.2025 6 of 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 4152 of 2025 and CMP Nos.21347 and 21348 of 2025 1. DILIPAN S/o. Sankaran, Srivari Scans, 23/26, Sarojini Street, Stuartpet, Near Mani Naidu Mahal, Arakkonam 631 001 Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Sai Sarvani D/o. Suresh Kumar, Flat No. 25, Guhaas Padmakshi Apartments Thiruvalluvar Salai, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 41 Respondent(s) PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off the Petition in DVC No.43 of 2025 filed by the respondent before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. For Petitioner(s): Mr. T.Surendran For Respondent(s): Ms.A.Rajeswari