Dismissed

T.S.Yogesh Babu v. Durga

Madras HC6 Aug 2026CRP(MD)/3226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition sought to quash a Domestic Violence Act complaint for lack of domestic incident allegations. The single-judge bench dismissed the petition, holding that the Full Bench in Arul Daniel and the Supreme Court in Virudhunagar bar this court's intervention due to the availability of alternative remedies before the Magistrate, such as raising preliminary objections on jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate for appropriate remedy, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

T.S.Yogesh Babu Vs Durga — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3226 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 06.08.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3226 of 2024 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)Nos.18559 and 18560 of 2024

¶8

T.S.Yogesh Babu ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.Durga 2.Bhuvaneshwari 3.T.V.Sudarsan

¶11

4.Sobana

¶12

5.Sridharan Babu

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to call for the records in DVOP No.147 of 2024 and quash the same on the file of the Learned Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level), Madurai District forthwith.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinodh For Respondents : Mr.S.Poornachandran for R1

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3226 of 2024

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Civil Revision is filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by the first respondent against the petitioner and other respondents under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

¶21

2. The petitioner is the husband of the first respondent. The other respondents are the in-laws of the first respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that the allegations made by the first respondent in the complaint are not sufficient to invoke the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. In the complaint, there is no allegation of domestic incidents. Therefore, the Magistrate ought not to have issued process to the petitioner and the other respondents.

¶22

3. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arul Daniel

¶23

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

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3226 of 2024

¶27

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 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.”

¶29

4. In view of the availability of alternative remedy before

¶30

the Magistrate, as held by the 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

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3226 of 2024

¶34

Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Shabha Vs Tuticorin

¶35

Educational Society reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019 held that availability of alternative remedy before regular Courts, is near total bar

¶36

for exercise of supervisory power by High Court. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in revision.

¶37

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed

¶38

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

¶39

6. Since the complaint preferred by the first respondent under Sections 18 to 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are predominantly civil in nature, the personal appearance of the petitioner before the Additional Mahila Court (Magisterial Level), Madurai District, is dispensed with, unless his presence is absolutely necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶40

06.08.2026

¶41

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm

¶42

4/6

¶43

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

¶44

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3226 of 2024

¶45

¶46