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.

Arputhamani Vs Julia Vincy — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
Arputhamani Vs Julia VincyArputhamani v. Julia Vincy

Allowed¶34

Arputhamani v. Julia Vincy

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Quash petition under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS

Madras HC30 Oct 2025CRL OP(MD)/15682/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15682 of 2025, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Sunder Mohan J., 30.10.2025): quash petition under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS against DV Act proceedings (Sections 20, 22, 23(2)) in D.V.C.No.5 of 2025, Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam. Held: allegations primarily against husband; proceedings against mother-in-law and sister-in-law (A2 & A3) an abuse of process; quashed insofar as petitioners alone; trial against husband to continue expeditiously. Keywords: domestic violence, quash, abuse of process, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, D.V.C., Sathankulam, Tirunelveli.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2025 insofar as the petitioners (A2 and A3) alone; connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions closed. ¶34

Why is it important?

The proceedings against the petitioners are an abuse of process of law, as there is nothing to suggest that they committed domestic violence against the respondent. ¶29

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2025 insofar as the petitioners (A2 and A3) alone; connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2025 against the petitioners (A2 and A3, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent's husband) are an abuse of process of law, the allegations being primarily against the husband, and liable to be quashed.

Court's answer

The proceedings against the petitioners are an abuse of process of law, as there is nothing to suggest that they committed domestic violence against the respondent.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2025 are quashed insofar as the petitioners alone; the learned Magistrate may proceed with the complaint against the respondent's husband in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The learned Magistrate shall complete the proceedings against the respondent's husband as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by the observations made in this order.obiter¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Quash petition under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS — Proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2025 before the Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, under Sections 20, 22 and 23(2) of the DV Act — Allegations in the domestic violence proceedings primarily against the husband; nothing to suggest that the petitioners (mother-in-law and sister-in-law, arraigned as A2 and A3) committed domestic violence — Proceedings against the petitioners held to be an abuse of process of law and quashed insofar as the petitioners alone — Learned Magistrate to proceed against the respondent's husband in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations in the order, and complete the proceedings expeditiously — Criminal Original Petition allowed; connected Crl.M.Ps. closed.

A

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15682 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 30.10.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15682 of 2025

and

Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.12780 and 12781 of 2025

1.Arputhamani 2.Sengol Mary ... Petitioners/A2 & A3

Vs.

Julia Vincy ... Respondent

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in Proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, in respect of the petitioners and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Ponkarthikeyan For Respondent : M/s.MA.Rex *****

O R D E R

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

Proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2025 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, in respect of the petitioners, filed by the second

____________ Page No. 1 of 5_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15682 of 2025

respondent under Sections 20, 22 and 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2.The gist of allegations in the impugned proceedings is that the respondent and her husband, who is the son of the 1^st petitioner herein got married on 21.01.2024; that at the time of marriage, the respondent had given Rs.3 Lakhs as dowry to her husband for purchasing gold thali, saree and for marriage expenses and several sreethana articles were gifted; that after the marriage, the husband had been causing harassment to the respondent; that her husband informed the respondent that she has to abide by his mother's conditions; that thereafter, there are several instances of harassment by the respondent by her husband.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the husband of the respondent herein. He would further submit that the allegations in the domestic violence proceedings are primarily as against the husband; that the matrimonial differences between the husband and the respondent are sought to be projected as a case of domestic violence as against the petitioners; that the relief is also primarily sought for as against the

Page No. 2 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15682 of 2025

husband and therefore, the impugned proceedings may be quashed.

4.The learned counsel for the respondent however, would submit that the relief is sought for against the petitioners herein as they are liable to pay compensation for the violence suffered by the respondent in the matrimonial home and would pray that the point raised by the petitioners cannot be agitated in the quash petition and sought for dismissal.

5.As stated above, the allegations are primarily against the respondent's husband. The respondent is aggrieved by the fact that her husband has filed divorce petition with false allegations. She had also stated that she is still ready to live with her husband in a separate home in Tirunelveli, which suggests that there are chances of reconciliation.

6.Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that the proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law as there is nothing to suggest that they had committed domestic violence as against the respondent. Hence, the impugned proceedings insofar as the petitioners alone is quashed. The learned Magistrate may proceed with the complaint as against the respondent's husband in accordance with law

____________ Page No. 3 of 5_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15682 of 2025

without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order and shall complete the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

30.10.2025

vsg

Index: Yes/ No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Copy To:

The learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam

Page No. 4 of 5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15682 of 2025

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

vsg

Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15682 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.12780 and 12781 of 2025

30.10.2025

____________ Page No. 5 of 5_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2025 against the petitioners (A2 and A3, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent's husband) are an abuse of process of law, the allegations being primarily against the husband, and liable to be quashed.¶22
The court held
The proceedings against the petitioners are an abuse of process of law, as there is nothing to suggest that they committed domestic violence against the respondent.ratio¶29

Statutes considered

5 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973482¶12
Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023528¶12
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 200520¶20 22¶20 23(2)¶20

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2025 initiated by the respondent against the petitioners under Sections 20, 22 and 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, sought to be quashed in respect of the petitioners.¶12
Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam
Prior proceeding
Respondent's husband (son of the 1st petitioner) has filed a divorce petition against the respondent with false allegations.¶28

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Arputhamani¶9
R.Ponkarthikeyan
petitioner
Sengol Mary¶9
R.Ponkarthikeyan
respondent
Julia Vincy¶11
MA.Rex

Coram

AI extract

SUNDER MOHANauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 30 Oct 2025 · October
Registered: 17 Sept 2025
Case no.: CRL OP(MD)/15682/2025
CNR: HCMD010973132025
Topic: Domestic Violence
Bench: Sunder Mohan
Disposal: ALLOWED
Case type: Crl.O.P.(MD)

Similar cases

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

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Sunder Mohan

Jayapushpam Vs The State of Tamilnadu
29 Oct 2025
Senthil @ Senthil Murugan Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep.by
29 Oct 2025
A. Parameshwari Vs The Commissioner of Police
29 Oct 2025
Navaneetha Vs Tamilselvi
30 Oct 2025
Narayanraj Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer/ Sub Collector
30 Oct 2025
R. Umarani Vs The State of Tamilnadu
30 Oct 2025

Cite this judgement

Arputhamani v. Julia Vincy, CRL OP(MD)/15682/2025 (MAD), decided on 30 October 2025.

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

Statutes5

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973482
Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023528
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 200520 · 22 · 23(2)

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Proceedings in D.V.C.No.5 of 2025 initiated by the respondent against the petitioners under Sections 20, 22 and 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, sought to be quashed in respect of the petitioners.Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam
Respondent's husband (son of the 1st petitioner) has filed a divorce petition against the respondent with false allegations.

View full history

Bench / Coram

SUNDER MOHAN

Parties & counsel