Dismissed¶31

Shanthini v. N.Prasanna Venkatesh

Madras HC9 Feb 2026CRP/292/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction of High Court not to be exercised where effective alternative remedy exists; strike-off / rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC; wife-petitioner; permanent injunction suit O.S.No.6023 of 2024 barring entry to matrimonial home / shared house; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bar contention left undecided; Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society, MANU/SC/1365/2019 applied; C.R.P. dismissed with liberty, connected C.M.P. closed, no costs; Madras High Court; S. Sounthar J.; decided 09.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking rejection of plaint in accordance with law; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.1899 of 2025) closed; no costs.

Shanthini Vs N.Prasanna Venkatesh — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, should entertain and allow the petitioner-wife's Civil Revision Petition seeking strike-off of the plaint in O.S.No.6023 of 2024, in which the respondents seek permanent injunction against her. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

A litigant who contends that a plaint's prayer is barred by law has an effective alternative remedy of applying for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC; without exhausting that remedy, the litigant is not entitled to directly approach the High Court by invoking its supervisory power.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Applying the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others v. Tuticorin Educational Society and others (MANU/SC/1365/2019), where an effective alternative remedy is available before the regular Civil Court, this Court ought not to exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

Key takeaways

On the petitioner's own contention that the prayer in the plaint is barred by law, the appropriate course is an application under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC before the trial court; the question of such bar (including under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) was not adjudicated by this Court and is left to be agitated in that proceeding.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.), C.R.P.No.292 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.1899 of 2025, decided 09.02.2026 — Supervisory jurisdiction / alternative remedy / rejection of plaint. A wife-petitioner moved under Article 227 of the Constitution to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.6023 of 2024 (XXI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai), a suit by the respondents for permanent injunction restraining her from entering the suit property claimed by her as the matrimonial home/shared house; she contended the plaint prayer was barred by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Held: where a plaint's prayer is contended to be barred by law, the litigant's effective alternative remedy is an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC; without exhausting that remedy the petitioner cannot directly invoke the High Court's supervisory power. Following Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others v. Tuticorin Educational Society and others, MANU/SC/1365/2019 (where an effective alternative remedy is available before the regular Civil Court, the Court ought not exercise supervisory power under Article 227), the Court declined to entertain the revision and dismissed it with liberty to seek rejection of the plaint; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed and no costs were awarded. The DVA-bar question was left to be decided in the contemplated Order VII Rule 11(b) proceeding.

¶1

C.R.P.No.292 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 09.02.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.No.292 of 2025

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.No.1899 of 2025

Shanthini

…. Petitioners

1.N.Prasanna Venkatesh 2.N.Bala

¶13

…. Respondent

¶14

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to allow the Civil Revision Petition by striking of the plaint in O.S.No.6023 of 2024 on the file of the XXI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sriram for Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondents : Mr.S.Udhaya Kumar

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking to strike off the plaint filed by the respondents seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner.

¶18

1/4

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.No.292 of 2025

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that the suit property is a matrimonial home of the petitioner and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from entering the shared house. It is further contended that, in view of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the prayer sought for by the respondents is barred. If it is the case of the petitioner that the prayer sought for in the plaint is barred by law, the petitioner has got effective alternative remedy of filing an appropriate application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead of exhausting the

¶22

remedy available, the petitioner is not entitled to directly approach this Court by invoking its supervisory power.

¶23

In the case of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma

¶24

Paribalana Sabai and others vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and

¶25

others reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019 , the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that when an effective alternative remedy is available before regular Civil Court, this Court ought not to exercise its supervisory

¶26

power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

2/4

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P.No.292 of 2025

¶30

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to

¶31

entertain this civil revision petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application seeking rejection of plaint in accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

09.02.2026

Lpp

The XXI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶36

3/4

¶37

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

¶38