Karthikeyan v. A.R.Logapriya

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.08.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI and C.M.P. No.11502 of 2024

1. Karthikeyan

2. Jayalakshmi

3. Devakumar ...

Petitioners vs.

1. A.R. Logapriya

2. Minor Pratik Karthikeyan ...

Respondents Prayer : C.R.P. filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to stuck up the complaint relating to the proceedings in DVC No.114 of 2023 pending on the file of this Additional Mahila Judge at Egmore, Chennai and strike off the same at illegal and unconstitutional. For Petitioners : Mr.M. Ramamoorthi For Respondents : Mr.S. Aadithya - - - - - -

ORDER

I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the 1/5

Constitution of India to strike of the Domestic Violence Complaint viz., D.V.C. No.114 of 2023 filed by the respondents. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the in-laws of the 1st respondent.

3. Mr.M. Ramamoorthi, learned counsel for the petitioners states that there are no serious allegations made against the revision petitioners 2 and 3 and even according to the 1st respondent, the petitioners have shifted to the second floor of the same building only in January 2023 and referring to the allegations in paragraph 16, the learned counsel would state that the allegations are predominantly against the husband of the 1st respondent i.e., the son of the petitioners 2 and 3 and not against the petitioners 2 and 3. He would therefore prays for the complaint being struck of as against the in-laws of the 1st respondent, viz., petitioners 2 and 3.

4. Per contra, Mr.S. Aadithya, learned counsel for the respondents, inviting my attention to paragraphs 8 and 9 would contend that it is not as if there is no allegations made against the revision petitioners 2 and 3 and specific allegations have not been made in the Domestic Violence Complaint against the revision petitioners 2 and 3 and would invite my 2/5

attention to paragraphs 8, 9 and 13, where the respondent-wife has made specific allegations against the revision petitioners.

5. The petitioners have not made out a case that there is any blatant lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Magistrate, who has taken cognizance of the complaint.

6. In the light of the above, I do not find any grounds warranting striking of the Domestic Violence Complaint and therefore, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

7. However, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Arul Daniel vs. Suganya reported in (2022) SCC Online Mad 5435, the presence of the petitioners shall not been insisted upon before the Additional Mahila Judge, Egmore, Chennai and their presence could be ensured only when the petitioners 2 and 3 are going to be examined as witnesses in the said proceedings and not otherwise. Considering that the Domestic Violence Complaint is pending from 2023, I am inclined to issue a direction to the Additional Mahila Judge, Egmore to dispose of D.V.C. No.114 of 2023, on merits and in 3/5

accordance with law, within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

25.08.2025 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vsi2 To The Additional Mahila Judge, Egmore, Chennai.

4/5

P.B. BALAJI, J.

vsi2 and C.M.P. No.11502 of 2024 25.08.2025 5/5