K.Prabhu v. N.Pavithra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-12-2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No.13299 of 2025 K.Prabhu S/o.H.R.Kannan Naidu, Door No.29/10, Bheeman Street, Ward No.27, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District - 612 001.

.. Petitioner Vs N.Pavithra W/o.K.Prabhu, D/o.Navaneetha Krishnan Naidu, Door No.147, GVL Nagar, Perur Chettipalayam, Coimbatore - 641 010.

..Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings made in D.V.C.No.24 of 2017 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi and set aside the same.

For Petitioner:

Mr.M.SEENI SULTHAN For Respondent(s):

Left

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by the respondent under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. 2.The petitioner is husband. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit already the petitioner filed Original petition seeking divorce in H.M.O.P. No.129 of 2013 and the present complaint has been preferred by the respondent only as a counter blast to the original petition filed by the petitioner. It is also stated that the allegations made in the complaint are vague and the same are not sufficient to invoke the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. 3.Taking into consideration the specific allegations in the complaint, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case. It is open to the petitioner to go before the learned Magistrate and raise all preliminary issues as held by the full bench of this Court in Arul Daniel and Others Versus Suganya reported in (2022) SCC Online Mad 5435.

4.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 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 Act. 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.

5.In view of the availability of alternative remedy before Magistrate, as held by 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 Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Shabha Vs Tuticorin Educational Society reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019 held that availability of alternative remedy before regular Courts, is near total bar for exercise of supervisory power by High Court. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in revision. 6.Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed 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. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 7.Having regard to the fact the complaint preferred under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act is predominantly civil in nature, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the learned Magistrate unless it is absolutely necessary. 05-12-2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GSA

To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

GSA and C.M.P.No.13299 of 2025 05.12.2025