Sowndariya Vs Vijayalakshmi

¶1

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023 and C.M.P.Nos.13112 and 13114 of 2023

¶7

Sowndariya ... Petitioner vs. 1.Vijayalakshmi 2.Mathan 3.Parameswari ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records of D.V.C.No.09 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahaleer Judicial Magistrate Court, Villupuram and strike off the same as against the petitioner.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Saravanan For R1 : Mr.D.Raghu For R2 and R3 : Mr.G.Hariharan

¶10

1/6

¶11

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

¶12

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to strike off the complaint preferred by the 1^st respondent/wife under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in D.V.C.No.09 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Mahaleer Judicial Magistrate Court, Villupuram.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a family member of the 2^nd respondent/husband and therefore, there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and respondents. In such circumstances, the complaint preferred by the 1^st respondent against the petitioner under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is not at all maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent would submit

¶17

that the complaint has been dismissed for default on 08.10.2025. It is also stated that an application has been filed to restore the same.

¶18

2/6

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023

¶21

If it is the case of the petitioner that she never had any kind of domestic relationship with the respondents and therefore, the complaint is not at all maintainable, it is always open to her to raise preliminary issues before the concerned Judicial Magistrate by filing an application, in case the complaint is restored.

¶22

The 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 Judicial Magistrate can go before the very same Judicial 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 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The relevant portion reads as follows:-

¶23

“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

¶24

3/6

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023

¶27

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.”

¶28

In view of the categorical pronouncement of law by the Full Bench

¶29

of this Court that a person aggrieved by issuance of process can very well approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate raising preliminary issues and hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When petitioner has remedy before Regular Magistrate, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Shabha Vs Tuticorin Educational Society reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019 , this Court need not exercise it’s supervisory jurisdiction.

¶30

4/6

¶31

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

¶32

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023

¶33

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to

¶34

the petitioner to approach the very same Judicial Magistrate raising preliminary issues, in case complaint is restored to file. If any such application is filed and preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the petition against revision petitioner is raised, the Additional Mahaleer Judicial Magistrate Court, Villupuram shall consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶35

The complaint preferred by the 1^st respondent seeking various orders under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are predominantly civil in nature and therefore, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Additional Mahaleer Judicial Magistrate Court, Villupuram , unless her presence is absolutely necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶36

19.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dm To

¶37

The Additional Mahaleer Judicial Magistrate Court, Villupuram.

¶38

5/6

¶39

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

¶40

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023

¶41

S.SOUNTHAR, J.