Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49510
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
Arjun Raj – Appellant
Versus
S.Deepa – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1996 of 2025 | CMP No. 11487 of 2025
For the Petitioners: Mr.L.Muruganantham
For the Respondent: Mr.K.N.Nataraaj
The court emphasizes the necessity for trials in domestic violence complaints, rejecting dismissals based on accusations of vexatiousness.
Headnote:(A) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections applicable to complaints - Direction to expedite disposal of domestic violence complaints - Recognizing relevance of maintaining the integrity of complaints despite gaps or lack of reference in related cases - Court reinforces the necessity for judicial consideration of evidence and allegations in domestic violence matters. (Paras 7, 10)
(B) Judicial Review - High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 - Striking off complaints as abuse of process - Court emphasizes that the validity of domestic violence allegations must be established through trial, denying dismissal at the threshold based on prior allegations. (Paras 5, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contend that a domestic violence complaint is vexatious given the lack of cohabitation for over a decade and alleged frivolous nature of the complaints, while the respondent asserts specific allegations of domestic violence requiring judicial determination.
Findings of Court:
The court finds no grounds to strike off the domestic violence complaint, highlighting the need for trial to ascertain facts behind the allegations.
Issues: Central question revolves around whether the domestic violence complaint can be maintained despite the petitioners’ arguments regarding cohabitation and the nature of allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concludes that the specific allegations made in the complaint, supported by a Protection Officer's report, justify a trial's necessity, affirming judicial scrutiny of domestic violence complaints.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. order for expediting domestic violence complaint. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioners claim the complaint is vexatious. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondent asserts specific allegations of violence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court discusses requirements for maintaining complaints. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 5. court dismisses revision petition, upholding the necessity for trial. (Para 10 , 11) |
P.B.BALAJI, J.
After pronouncement of the order today i.e 18.07.2025 in the above Civil revision petition, Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the parties have already adduced evidence and the proceedings in the said Domestic violence complaint is pending at the stage of final arguments and thereby, he seeks for a direction to the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the Domestic violence complaint in DVC.No.30 of 2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – II, Tambaram.
2. In view of the above submission, read this order in continuation of and in conjunction with the order dated 18.07.2025 that reads as follows:
“The Judicial Magistrate – II, Tambaram is directed to dispose of DVC.No.30 of 2023 pending on its file within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.
18.07.2025 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Order reserved on : 14.07.2025 Order pronounced on : 18.07.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI CRP.No.1996 of 2025 & CMP.No.11487 of 2025
1.Arjun Raj
2.N.Mariaappan
3.M.Bhakya Lakshmi ..Petitioners Vs.
S.Deepa ..Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for records pertaining to D.V.C.No.30 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate – II, Tambaram, and strike off the names of the revision petitioners as abuse of process of law.
For Petitioners : Mr.L.Muruganantham For Respondent : Mr.K.N.Nataraaj
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the husband and parents-in-law of the respondent, seeking to strike off the domestic violence complaint in DVC.No.30 of
2023, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Tambaram.
2.I have the heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. L. Murugan and Mr. K. N. Nataraj.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though there is no limitation for filing of domestic violence complaint, when the complaint is wholly vexatious and especially when there has been no cohabitation between the spouses, who have been living separately for the last 10 years, the domestic violence complaint is nothing but a gross abuse and liable to be struck off.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would take me through the complaints that have been lodged against the revision petitioners and state that they are all frivolous in nature and there was never any demand for dowry by the petitioners. The learned counsel would also state that the respondent / wife left the matrimonial house out of her own volition and after a lapse of 10 years, the complaint has been lodged with imaginary and vexatious allegations which do not warrant a trial at all. A reference is also made to the deposition of the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate I at Tambaram, where the wife has been examined as P.W.1 and even from the said deposition, it is contended that there is no allegation of any act of domestic violence.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.K.N.Nataraaj, would submit that the respondent has made specific allegations against all the petitioners and unless the parties lead oral and documentary evidence, the truth or falsity in the allegations cannot be established or decided by the competent Court trying the dispute. The learned counsel would also take me through the specific and particular allegations against the petitioners with detailed description of the incident of domestic violence along with the date/period. He would therefore state that all these allegations require evidence to be let in by the parties and the complaint cannot be thrown out at the threshol
