The High Court cannot dismiss domestic violence complaints without trial unless there is a clear jurisdictional error or manifest injustice.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The petitioners seek to set aside the petition in DVA. No.114 of 2024 on the file of the Special Magistrate (Special Court to try cases filed under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act), Coimbatore.

2. I have heard Mr.G.K.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.I Abdul Basith, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr.G.K.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the learned Magistrate has erroneously entertained the complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against all the petitioners, without there being sufficient grounds, thereby necessitating the petitioners to move this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.G.K.Muthukumar, would also take me through the complaint itself and contend that there are no specific allegations against the particular petitioners, especially against the mother in law and the sister in law and manifest injustice has been caused because of the cognizance of the complaint against these petitioners. He would also refer to Khula document dated 15.11.2023 as well as an earlier letter addressed by the respondent/wife to the Jamath on 09.07.2023 and referring to these documents, Mr.G.K.Muthukumar, would contend that in both these documents, there is absolutely no whisper about any acts of domestic violence and even subsequent to the filing of Domestic Violence Case, the respondent has filed a petition for divorce where the grounds alleged are entirely different from what has been stated in the Khula.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would therefore contend that when no specific overt Act of domestic violence has been pleaded, specifically against the petitioners, moreso, against the mother and sister of the first petitioner, the Trial Court ought not to have taken on file the complaint in the first place. He would further state that only in order to harass the petitioners, the Domestic Violence Complaint has been lodged. He would also state that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint and viewing the same with surrounding circumstances, the conduct of the respondent clearly indicates that she is attempting to arm twist the first petitioner to accept for dissolution of the marriage.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.G.K.Muthukumar, would also state that the averment insofar as 22 ½ sovereigns of jewellery, the respondent has left the same in a cupboard in the house, key of which is only with the respondent and therefore, the respondent can always open the cupboard/locker and retrieve her jewellery. The petitioners have asserted that they are not having possession of the jewellery and would further contend that the first petitioner is willing to live with the respondent and the matter can be amicably resolved, if the parties are referred to Mediation.

7. He would also place reliance on the decisions of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arul Daniel and Others Vs. Suganya , reported in (2022) 3 MWN (Crl.) 539 as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Raval , in 2025 INSC 734 .

8. Per contra, Mr.Abdul Basith , learned counsel for the respondent would state that the petitioners are residing in one shared household admittedly, that is under one roof and when allegations are made against all the petitioners, the matter certainly requires a trial and therefore, the complaint cannot be struck off as not maintainable. He would also rely on the deci