Palanivel v. P. Navamani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR C.M.P.Nos.16885 & 16887 of 2023

1. Palanivel

2. Senthamil Selvi

3. S.Sangeetha

4. Singaravel Petitioner(s) Vs

1. P. Navamani 2.Iyyappan Respondent(s) PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike out the complaint dated 05.04.2023, given under Domestic Violence Act in D.V.C.No.2 of 2023 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam, with regard to the petitioner's concern by allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.G.A. Girijavenkataramanan For Respondent(s):

Mr.D.Vairamoorthy for

M/s.S.Senthil for R1

ORDER

The Civil Revision petition is filed seeking to strike of the complaint preferred by the first respondent under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act.

2.The petitioners 1 and 2 are the parent-in-laws of the first respondent. The third petitioner is the sister-in-law of the first respondent and the fourth petitioner is the husband of the third petitioner. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the husband of the first respondent namely the second respondent filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.639 of 2022 on the file of Sub Court, Alandur and therefore, as a counter blast the first respondent preferred this complaint just to harass the petitioners. It is also stated that there is no

allegation against the petitioners, so as to invoke the provisions under Domestic Violence Act.

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

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 petitioners before the learned Magistrate unless it is absolutely necessary. Accordingly, the connected

C.M.P.Nos.16885 and 16887 of 2023 are closed. No costs. 02-01-2026 ep Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam.

S.SOUNTHAR J.

ep C.M.P.Nos.16885 & 16887 of 2023 02-01-2026