Dismissed

K.Harish @ Vipin Chanderan v. Harini

Madras HC16 Feb 2026CRP/100/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of a domestic violence complaint under Section 12 DV Act via Article 227. The Court declined to interfere, citing the Full Bench ruling in Arul Daniel that preliminary objections lie before the Magistrate, dismissed the revision with liberty to approach the Magistrate, and dispensed with personal appearance.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; liberty granted to approach the Magistrate for remedy; personal appearance of petitioners dispensed with unless absolutely necessary; miscellaneous petitions closed.

K.Harish @ Vipin Chanderan Vs Harini — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRP No. 100 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

CRP No. 100 of 2024 and

¶7

CMP.No.490 and 19063 of 2024

¶8

K.Harish @ Vipin Chanderan

¶9

K. Jayanirmalavalli

¶10

R. Kumar

..Petitioner(s)

Mrs.Harini

..Respondent(s)

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records of the complaint in DVC No.81 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and quash the same.

¶16

For Petitioner(s): No appearance

¶17

For Respondent(s): M/s.B.Sharmila for M/s.T.Vidya Sagar

¶18

__________ Page1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

CRP No. 100 of 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The civil revision petition has been filed seeking to quash the complaint

¶23

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

¶24

The 1^st petitioner is the husband of the respondent/complainant. The

¶25

petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of the respondent.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioners that in the averments made by the respondent in her complaint, no case is made out against the petitioners for proceeding under the provisions of domestic violence act.

¶27

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 Magistrate can go before the very same 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 Domestic Violence Act. The relevant portion reads as follows:-

¶28

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

¶29

__________ Page2 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

CRP No. 100 of 2024

¶32

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.

¶33

In view of the availability of alternative remedy before Magistrate, as held by Full Bench in Arul Daniel case, this Court is not inclined to exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Shabha Vs Tuticorin Educational Society reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019 held that availability of alternative remedy before regular Courts, is near total bar for exercise of supervisory power by High Court. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in revision.

¶34

Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed with liberty

¶35

to the petitioners to approach the concerned Magistrate for getting appropriate remedy in terms of order passed in Arul Daniel case cited supra.

¶36

Page3 of 5

¶37

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

¶38

CRP No. 100 of 2024

¶39

Having regard to the fact the complaint preferred under Section 12 of

¶40

Domestic Violence Act is predominantly civil in nature, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate unless it is absolutely necessary. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶41

16-02-2026

¶42

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶43

¶44

¶45

The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.

¶46

__________ Page4 of 5

¶47

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