Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Devaraj, (M/a 38 Yrs) Vs Mrs.D.Pushpa — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

Home
Madras HC
2021
Devaraj, (M/a 38 Yrs) Vs Mrs.D.PushpaDevaraj, (M/a 38 Yrs) v. Mrs.D.Pushpa

Dismissed

Devaraj, (M/a 38 Yrs) v. Mrs.D.Pushpa

Madras HC16 Sept 2021CRL OP/17720/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a Section 482 Cr.P.C petition challenging proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not maintainable, as such matters require a Civil Revision Petition under Article 226 or 227. The impugned petition was dismissed as the underlying matter had been disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable to question the pendency of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

A petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. questioning the pendency of complaints under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not maintainable. Such proceedings must be challenged through a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as held in the cited batch order. Consequently, the present criminal original petition was dismissed.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 16.09.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

Crl.OP.No.17720/2016 & Crl.MP.No.8446/2016

[Video Conferencing]

1.Devaraj

2.Karthikeyan

...Petitioners/3^rd and 5^th Respondents

Versus

Mrs.D.Pushpa

...Respondent/Complainant

Prayer : - Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the records and quash the case in MC.No.21/2016 on the file of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, at Saidapet, Chennai.

For Petitioners : Mr.Palaniyandy

ORDER

(1) A learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of cases in Crl.O.P.No.28458/2019 etc., batch, [Dr.Padmanathan and Others Vs. Tmt. Monica and Others] vide common order dated 18.01.2021, had very categorically held that any proceedings questioning the pendency of complaints preferred under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, should only be preferred as a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and that the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., would not lie and the same is not maintainable.

(2) Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing further survives as the Trial Court had disposed of MC.No.21/2016.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

(3) Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

AP

To

The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

Crl.OP.No.17720/2016

SJ (CO) K.RK. (04.10.2021)

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable to question the pendency of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2.
What is the correct procedural remedy for challenging proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Dr.Padmanathan and Others Vs. Tmt. Monica and OthersRelied on¶16
Dr.Padmanathan and Others Vs. Tmt. Monica and Others

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Cr.P.C.482
Constitution of IndiaArticle 227
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence ActProtection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Devaraj & Others
respondent
D. Pushpa

Coram

AI extract

C.V. Karthikeyan

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 16 Sept 2021 · September
Registered: 8 Aug 2016
Case no.: CRL OP/17720/2016
CNR: HCMA010054782016
Topic: Service and Employment
Bench: C.v. Karthikeyan
Disposal: DISMISSED

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from C.v. Karthikeyan

Shanmugasethuramasamy Vs the Sub-Divisional Magistrate/
15 Sept 2021
Govindasamy Vs K.Saranya
15 Sept 2021
H.Paramanantham Vs the Assistant Commissioner
15 Sept 2021
Kirubasankar (55) Vs Vijayalakshmi (32)
16 Sept 2021
M.Shanmugasundaram,M/a 62 Yrs Vs the State of Tamil Nadu
16 Sept 2021
S.Benita Vs the Secretary to Government
16 Sept 2021

Cite this judgement

Devaraj, (M/a 38 Yrs) v. Mrs.D.Pushpa, CRL OP/17720/2016 (MAD), decided on 16 September 2021.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Dr.Padmanathan and Others Vs. Tmt. Monica and OthersRelied on¶16

Open Authorities

Statutes3

Cr.P.C.482
Constitution of IndiaArticle 227
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence ActProtection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

C.V. Karthikeyan

Parties & counsel