P.Sargunam Vs R.Suriya

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the Domestic Violence Complaint filed in D.V.C.No.24 of 2024, pending on the file of learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Madukarai District, in so far as the Petitioners herein are concerned, by allowing the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Muthu Yazhini for M/s.A.Arun For R1 : Mr.J.Franklin For R2 : No Appearance For R3 : Left

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.No.2562 of 2025

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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.24 of 2024 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Madukarai.

¶21

The 1 st petitioner is the mother-in-law of the 1 st respondent and the

¶22

2nd petitioner is the paternal uncle of the 2 nd respondent/husband.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners never had any kind of domestic relationship with the 1st respondent and therefore, the Judicial Magistrate ought not have issued process to the petitioners based on the vague allegations made in the complaint. Hence, the complaint preferred by the 1^st respondent against the petitioner shall be quashed.

¶24

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

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

C.R.P.No.2562 of 2025

¶28

before the very same Judicial Magistrate and raise preliminary objections

¶29

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:-

¶30

“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.”

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P.No.2562 of 2025

¶34

In view of the categorical pronouncement of law by the Full Bench 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 petitioners have 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.

¶35

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the very same Judicial Magistrate raising preliminary issues. If any such application is filed and preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the petition against revision petitioners is raised, the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Madukarai shall consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶36

The complaint preferred by the 1^st respondent seeking various orders under Sections 12, 18(8), 19(8), 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are predominantly civil in

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P.No.2562 of 2025

¶40

nature and therefore, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal

¶41

appearance of the petitioners before the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Madukarai , unless their presence is absolutely necessary. No

¶42

costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.