Vinothkumar Vs Vaidhegi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Vinothkumar Vs Vaidhegi — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 29 of the DVC Act against the impugned order; entitlement to exclude the period from 19.11.2025 until receipt of the copy of this order when computing limitation for such appeal; Registry to return the original impugned order to the petitioner's counsel; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenging the interim maintenance order in DVC No.15 of 2023 is maintainable, given the availability of an appeal under Section 29 of the DVC Act.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner has the alternative remedy of an appeal under Section 29 of the DVC Act against the impugned interim maintenance order, the High Court is not inclined to interfere with the Trial Court's order.

Key takeaways

The civil revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 29 of the DVC Act; there is no order as to costs and the connected miscellaneous petition (CMP No.32991 of 2025) is closed.ratio¶22
While calculating limitation for filing the appeal under Section 29 of the DVC Act, the petitioner is entitled to exclude the period spent prosecuting this civil revision petition, i.e. from 19.11.2025 to the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio¶27
The Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.) dismissed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 28.08.2025 of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhavani in CMP No.2 of 2024 in DVC No.15 of 2023, whereby the petitioner/husband was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent/wife pending disposal of her complaint. Relying on the Full Bench decision of that Court in Arul Daniel and Others Versus Suganya, (2022) SCC Online Mad 5435, the Court held that an aggrieved party may assail such an order by filing an appeal under Section 29 of the DVC Act, and declined to interfere in view of that available alternative remedy. The revision petition was dismissed with liberty to file such appeal; for limitation purposes the petitioner may exclude the period from 19.11.2025 to the date of receipt of a copy of this order; the Registry was directed to return the original impugned order; the connected CMP was closed with no order as to costs.

CRP.No.6669 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 06-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

CRP No. 6669 of 2025 and CMP No.32991 of 2025

1. Vinothkumar

S/o. Ganesan, D.No.4/57, Sunnambukaratur, Koneripatti Village, Sangagiri Taluk, Salem District.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

Vaidhegi W/o. Vinothkumar, D/o. Srinivasan, D.No.40, Murugan Kovil street, Kesarimangalam Village, Kupichipalayam, Bavani Taluk, Erode District.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside order and decreetal order passed in CMP No.2of 2024 in DVC No.15 of 2023 dated 28.08.2025 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhavani.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. T.Muruganantham

1/4

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

CRP.No.6669 of 2025

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhavani, directing the petitioner/husband to pay interim maintenance at Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent/wife, pending disposal of the complaint preferred by the respondent in DVC No.15 of 2023.

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he can very well file an appeal under Section 29 of DVC Act, as per the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Arul Daniel and Others Versus Suganya reported in (2022) SCC Online Mad 5435 . Therefore, inview of the availability of the alternative remedy to the petitioner, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court.

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the

petitioner to file an appeal as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

2/4

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

CRP.No.6669 of 2025

The petitioner is entitled to exclude the period taken by him in

prosecuting this civil revision petition before this court i.e. from 19.11.2025 to the date of receipt of copy of the order of this civil revision petition, while calculating limitation, for the purpose of filing an appeal under Section 29 of DVC Act. Registry is directed to return the original impugned order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

06.01.2026

Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation:Yes/No MST To The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bhavani.

3/4

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

CRP.No.6669 of 2025

S.SOUNTHAR , J.

MST

CRP.No.6669 of 2025

06.01.2026

4/4

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