S. Ravi v. A.S. Gayathri

ORDER The civil revision petition has been filed to quash the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act.

¶2It is the case of the petitioners that first respondent preferred instant complaint with the sole intention of harassing the petitioners and there are no specific allegations against the petitioners Therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued summons to the petitioners.

¶3The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arul Daniel and Others Versus Suganya reported in (2022) SCC Online Mad 5435 held that any person aggrieved by the process issued by the Magistrate can go before the very same Magistrate and raise preliminary objections with regard to the issues like existence of a shared household/ domestic relationship etc., If any order is passed, the aggrieved person can also take recourse to an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act. The relevant portion reads as follows:- 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.

¶4In view of the availability of alternative remedy before Magistrate, as held by Full Bench in Arul Daniel case, this Court is not inclined to exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Shabha Vs Tuticorin Educational Society reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019 held that availability of alternative remedy before regular Courts, is near total bar for exercise of supervisory power by High Court. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in revision.

¶5Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned Magistrate for getting appropriate remedy in terms of order passed in Arul Daniel case cited supra.

¶6Having regard to the fact the complaint preferred under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act is predominantly civil in nature, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate unless it is absolutely necessary. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

15.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No nr To The Additional Mahila Court, Alandur

S.SOUNTHAR , J. nr CRP.No.3443 of 2023 and CMP.Nos.21369 and 21374 of 2023

15.12.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.12.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CRP.No.3443 of 2023 and CMP.Nos.21369 and 21374 of 2023 1. S.Ravi 2. R.Jeya 3. Saranya ... Petitioners Vs. 1. A.S.Gayathri 2. R.Vijay Bharath ...Respondents PRAYER :Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records in connection with the complaint in D.V.C.No.31 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Mahila Court, at Alandur filed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kingston Jerold For R1 : Unclaimed For R2 : No such person