Sakkaraivel v. Saranya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 6222 of 2025 and CMP No.30677 and 30679 of 2025

1. SAKKARAIVEL S/O. Kuppusamy, No.5/758/2, Chetty Street, Thirupoondi West, Kilvelur, Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu - 611110.

2. Valli, W/o Sakkaraivel, No.5/758/2, Chetty Street, Thirupoondi West, Kilvelur, Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu - 611110.

Petitioner(s) Vs

1. SARANYA D/O. Late Kumaragurubaran, No.1-2A, Thiagu Mudaliar Nagar, Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry.

Respondent(s) PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash the DVC proceeding against this Revision petitioners vide DVC.No.7 of 2025 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Mahila Court, Puducherry.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. B.BALAVIJAYAN

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by the respondent against the petitioners under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

2. The petitioners herein are the parents in law of the respondent herein and the respondent filed DV No.7 of 2025 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Mahila Court, Puducherry against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent got separated long back and she also instituted a petition for divorce against the son of petitioners. Hence, the present complaint preferred by the respondent is only an attempt to harass the petitioners. He would further submit that the allegations made in the complaint are not specific and based on the vague allegations, the Magistrate ought not to have issued process to the petitioners.

4. In view of the Law settled by this Court in Arul Daniel and Others Versus Suganya reported in (2022) SCC Online Mad 5435, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the initiation of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, it is for them to move the very same Magistrate raising preliminary issues. The relevant observation of Full Bench 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.

Hence, this court is not inclined to exercise its Supervisory Power available under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off the complaint.

5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The petitioners are at liberty to move the concerned Magistrate for getting appropriate remedy as per law laid down in Arul Daniel case.

6. Taking into consideration the proceedings initiated before learned Magistrate is predominantly civil in nature, the personal appearance of the petitioners during enquiry before Magistrate is dispensed with, unless their personal appearance is absolutely necessary.

10.12.2025 Internet: yes Index: Yes/No MST To The Judicial Magistrat, Mahila Court, Puducherry.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

MST CRP No.6222 of 2025 10.12.2025