N.Jayachandran v. J.Geetha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No.8083 of 2023 1.N.Jayachandran Nedunchezhian 2.Lakshmi @ Vimala 3.Rasathi ... Petitioners vs.
J.Geetha ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to D.V.C.No.33 of 2020 and quash the Domestic Violence Proceedings in D.V.C.No.33 of 2020 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai-15 and allow this Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioners : No Appearance 1/6
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by the respondent under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in D.V.C.No.33 of 2020 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
2. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent. It is stated by the petitioners that the averments contained in the complaint do not disclose any domestic violence and hence, the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are not at all attracted. It is further stated that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process to the petitioners mechanically, without application of mind.
3. 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 Judicial Magistrate can go before the very same Judicial Magistrate and raise preliminary objections with regard to the issues like existence of a shared household/domestic 2/6
relationship etc. If any order is passed, the aggrieved person can also take recourse to an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The relevant portion reads as follows:- "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."
3/6
4. In view of the categorical pronouncement of law by the Full Bench of this Court that a person aggrieved by issuance of process can very well approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate raising preliminary issues and hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When petitioners have remedy before Regular Magistrate, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and others reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019, this Court need not exercise it's supervisory jurisdiction.
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the very same Metropolitan Magistrate raising preliminary issues. If any such application is filed and preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the petition against revision petitioners is raised, the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai-15 shall consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
6. The complaint preferred by the respondent seeking various orders under Sections 12, 18 and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic 4/6
Violence Act, 2005, are predominantly civil in nature and therefore, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners before theXXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai-15, unless their presence is absolutely necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 19.01.2026 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No : Yes / No dm To The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai-15.
5/6
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm 19.01.2026 6/6