Govindha Achari v. Divya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.R.P.No.

of 202 and C.M.P.No.

20531 of 202 1.Govindha Achari 2.Mahalakshmi 3.Raja Rajeshwari 4.Rajalakshmi 5.C.Mani Achari 6.Padmanaban 7.Sri Kirubachariyar 8.Mounica ... Petitioners vs.

1.Divya 2.G.Narayanan ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the records with respect of DVC.No.5 of 2025 on the file 1/6

of Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram filed by the 1st respondent and struck off the same against the petitioner herein.

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Santhanagopalakrisnan For R1 : Mr.N.Manoharan For R2 : No Appearance

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to strike off the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent/wife under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in DVC.No.5 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are parents-in-law and other blood relatives of 2nd respondent/husband. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that all family members of the 2nd respondent has been arrayed as parties in the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent, just to harass the petitioners and allegations found in the complaint do not make out any case against the petitioners.Therefore, the complaint preferred by the 1st 2/6

respondent against the petitioners shall be struck off.

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 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.

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."

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 petitioner has remedy before Regular Magistrate, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Shabha Vs Tuticorin Educational Society 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 Judicial Magistrate raising 4/6

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 Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram shall consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

6. The complaint preferred by the 1st respondent seeking various orders under Section 12 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are predominantly civil in nature and therefore, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, unless their presence is absolutely necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

01.12.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No : Yes / No dm To The Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram.

5/6

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

dm C.R.P.No.

of 202 01.12 .2025 6/6