Poongodi v. S. Ranjani

O R D E R This Civil Revision is filed seeking to quash the complaint filed by the first respondent under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

¶2According to the petitioner, she is the mother-in-law of the first respondent's sister-in-law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner in the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent are very vague and based on omnibus statement made by the first respondent, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent.

¶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 the Magistrate, as held by the 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 petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate for getting appropriate remedy in terms of order passed in Arul Daniel case cited supra.

¶6Since the complaint preferred by the first respondent under Sections 18 to 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are predominantly civil in nature, the personal appearance of the petitioner before Additional Mahila Court, Karur, is dispensed with, unless her presence is absolutely necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

15.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm To

¶1The Additional Mahila Court, Karur.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

S.SOUNTHAR, J. vsm

15.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.(MD)No.5427 of 2023 Poongodi ... Petitioner Vs 1. S. Ranjani 2. S.Kanagaraj 3. S.Pappathi 4. K.Subramani 5. S.Radha ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings initiated by the Additional Mahila Court, Karur in D.V.C.No. 69 of 2021 and strike off the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Anand For Respondents : No Appearance for R1 to R4