Dismissed

Ramasamy v. S.Mohanapriya

Madras HC3 Dec 2025CRP/4154/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents-in-law sought quashing of a Domestic Violence Act complaint, claiming they never lived in a shared household. Following the Full Bench in Arul Daniel v. Suganya, the court declined to exercise supervisory jurisdiction, dismissed the revision, and dispensed with personal appearance before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed without costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; personal appearance of petitioners before the Magistrate dispensed with unless necessary.

Ramasamy Vs S.Mohanapriya — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRP No.4154 of 2025

¶2

DATED: 03-12-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶5

CRP No. 4154 of 2025 and CMP No.21576 and 21351 of 2025

¶6

1. RAMASAMY

¶7

Door No. 5/63, Kailasampalayam, Vadugam Post, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal Dist. 637 407

¶8

Baby @ Perumukannu Door No. 5/63, Kailasampalayam, Vadugam Post, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal Dist. 637 407

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

S.Mohanapriya D/o. Sundaram D.No. 4/183, Sembiyanur B.Thurijipatti, Pappireddipatti Taluk, Dharmapuri Dist. 635 301

¶12

2.Arul Raja S/o. Ramasamy Door No. 5/63, Kailasampalayam, Vadugam Post, Rasipuram Taluk, Namakkal Dist. 637 407

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

1 of 7

¶15

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

¶16

CRP No.4154 of 2025

¶17

PRAYER: Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off the petition in DVC No.1 of 2024 filed by the first respondent before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Pappireddipatty and quash the proceedings so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr. T.Surendran

¶19

For Respondent(s): M/s.M.R.Vivekananthan for R1

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This civil revision petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint

¶22

preferred by the respondent under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

¶23

The petitioners are parents in-law and the 2nd respondent is husband of

¶24

the first respondent. The first respondent preferred a complaint in DVC No.1 of 2024 against the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have never lived in a shared household with the first respondent and therefore, the complaint made by the

¶25

first respondent is not maintainable.

¶26

In view of the Law settled by this Court in Arul Daniel and Others

¶27

Versus Suganya reported in (2022) SCC Online Mad 5435 , if the petitioners

¶28

2 of 7

¶29

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

¶30

CRP No.4154 of 2025

¶31

are aggrieved by the initiation of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence

¶32

Act, it is for them to move the very same Magistrate raising preliminary objections like absence of shared household, domestic violence, etc. The relevant observation of Full Bench reads as follows:-

¶33

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

¶34

3 of 7

¶35

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

¶36

CRP No.4154 of 2025

¶37

maintainability of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, at the threshold before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

¶38

Hence, this court is not inclined to exercise its Supervisory Power available

¶39

under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off the complaint.

¶40

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no

¶41

order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The petitioners

¶42

are at liberty to move the concerned Magistrate for getting appropriate remedy

¶43

as per law laid down in Arul Daniel case.

¶44

Taking into consideration the proceedings initiated before learned

¶45

Magistrate is predominantly civil in nature, the personal appearance of the

¶46

petitioners during enquiry before Magistrate is dispensed with, unless their

¶47

personal appearance is absolutely necessary.

¶48

4 of 7

¶49

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

¶50

CRP No.4154 of 2025

¶51

Internet: yes

¶52

Internet: yes Index: Yes/No Neutral citation: Yes/No MST

¶53

03.12.2025

¶54

¶55

The Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddipatty.

¶56

5 of 7

¶57

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

CRP No.4154 of 2025

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

MST

CRP No.4154 of 2025

6 of 7

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

CRP No.4154 of 2025

03.12.2025

7 of 7

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

Ramasamy v. S.Mohanapriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramasamy v. S.Mohanapriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saidaikarani Thottam Veetu Urimaiyalargal Vs the Commissioner

G.Shanmugam Vs N.Kanaga

J.Rajeshwari Vs B.R.Manokaran

Chakravarthi Vs Vasuki

S. Harshavardhan Vs Udhayalakshmi

Gowri Shankar, Vs M.Uma Maheshwari