( 1. ) THIS Civil Revision Petition challenges the action of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivagangai in taking on file a complaint filed under Sections 18 and 19 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

( 2. ) I have heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.N.Tamilmani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The first petitioner herein married the respondent herein according to Hindu Customary Rights on 27.3.1986. Out of the said wedlock, a girl and two boys were born. According to the first petitioner, the marriage between him and the respondent was dissolved in accordance with the customary practices of the community to which he belongs and that thereafter he married the second petitioner herein. The first petitioner also claims that there was a compromise between him and the respondent under a Deed of Muchalika dated 19.11.2006, followed by a Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.6.2007. Since the validity of the customary divorce alleged by the first petitioner and the details with regard to the alleged compromise between him and the respondent are not necessary for a decision in this revision petition, I am not adverting to the same in great detail.

( 3. ) ON 16.8.2010, the respondent filed a complaint on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivaganga in Criminal M.P.No.4466 of 2010 under Sections 18 and 19 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Magistrate took the complaint on file and issued notice to the petitioners herein. Contending that there was no prima facie case for the Magistrate to take the complaint on file and also contending that the complaint would not come within the parameters of the provisions of the Act, the petitioners are before this Court.

( 4. ) BEFORE adverting to the grounds on which the initiation of the proceedings is challenged, it is necessary to take note of two things viz., (i) the contents of the complaint and (ii) an amendment made subsequently by the respondent to the complaint already filed.

In the complaint filed by her, the respondent has stated that she married the first petitioner on 27.3.1986 in a village by name Madu Marithan, Sivaganga District, in accordance with the Hindu Customary Rights and Practices; that at the time of marriage, she was given a sridhan of 75 sovereigns of gold jewellery, 15 kilograms of silver utensils and household articles worth Rs.50,000/-; that after the marriage, the first petitioner and the respondent lived as husband and wife, first in Musiri, Trichy District and later in Chennai; that a girl baby and two boy babies were born out of the wedlock; that in 1986, the first petitioner was employed in a company manufacturing cylinders; that due to the rich experience gained by him, the first petitioner wanted to start a company of his own; that therefore the respondent gave her jewellery and also got a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from her father; that the first petitioner became a partner with one Thiagarajan running a company by name GTR at Renigunda, Andhra Pradesh; that in the year 1997, the first petitioner became the absolute owner of the company by paying off Thiagarajan with the money provided by the respondent; that with the huge profits made in the business, the first petitioner bought several properties at Sivaganga, Manamadurai, Sandarasankottai, Paramakudi, Velankulam etc., as well as in Andhra Pradesh; that as on date, the first petitioner has properties worth Rs.120 crores; that the family was shifted to Chidambaram for the purpose of education of the children and the respondent also settled at Chidambaram; that by using this opportunity, the first petitioner developed intimacy with the second petitioner; that towards the end of December 2009, the respondent received a notice from the Family Court, Chennai in O.P.No.4143 of 2009 for divorce; that thereafter she questioned the first petitioner about all the above, when he came to his native place viz.