Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66834
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
DHILIPKUMAR S/o.Raghuraman – Appellant
Versus
Selisha @ Umamaheswari W/o.Dhilipkumar – Respondent
CRP No. 2273 of 2024 | CRP No. 1028 of 2025 | CMP No. 11984 of 2024 | CMP No. 5959 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. P.V.Murlidhar, Mr.N.Palanikumar
For the Respondents: M/s. S.Bhargavi Gopalan
Vague allegations in domestic violence complaints do not warrant trial; serious claims require examination, and residential provisions must reflect actual living circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Domestic Violence Act - Complaint challenging by husband and family members regarding domestic violence - Allegations against the mother-in-law warrant trial, while those against the sister-in-law were vague - Residential order modified to include provision for wife’s accommodation at specified rent - Tribunal directed to expedite hearing. (Paras 10, 14, 15)
(B) Judicial Mandate - Court’s role in domestic violence matters emphasized; vague claims cannot be sustained without evidence and details - The existence of a shared household not justifiable after prolonged separation. (Paras 3, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners raise arguments against the legitimacy of the domestic violence complaint filed by the respondent, outlining the lack of specificity in allegations and asserting that previous separations complicate matters.
Findings of Court:
The court finds merit in striking off the complaint against the sister-in-law, while directing the mother-in-law to undergo trial due to serious allegations.
Issues: Whether the domestic violence complaint can stand given the vague nature of allegations against certain petitioners - Appropriateness of the residential protection order sought by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that vague and unsupported allegations do not merit continuation of the complaint against the sister-in-law, while evidence against the mother-in-law requires further examination.
Result: CRP.No.1028/2025 is partly allowed and domestic violence complaint regarding the second petitioner struck off; CRP.No.2273/2025 is allowed with conditions for residential accommodation and expedited trial.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of revision petitions regarding domestic violence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against the domestic violence complaint concerning vagueness and malafide intentions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. context of residential accommodation and conditions proposed. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. legal standing and necessity for trials regarding accusations. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's consideration on the merits of allegations against family members. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
COMMON ORDER
The revision in CRP.No.1028 of 2025 has been filed by the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent in both these revisions, seeking to strike off the domestic violence complaint in DVC.No.17/2022 filed by the respondent against the respective petitioners. The revision in CRP.No.2273 of 2025 has been filed by the husband, challenging the orders passed in CMP.No.1567 of 2025 in DVC.No.17/2022, in and by which the Judicial Magistrate has allowed the residential petition filed by the wife.
2. I have heard Mr.P.V.Muralidharan, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.2273/2025 and MR.N.Palanikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRP.No.1028/2025 and Mrs S. Bhargavi Gopalan, learned counsel for the respondent in both the revisions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the respondent, only with a view to harass the petitioners, namely the husband and mother-in-law, has chosen to initiate a domestic violence complaint. According to the petitioners, the allegations in the domestic violence complaint are not even date-specific and are general and very vague, and the learned magistrate ought not to have taken them on file. The petitioners therefore seek for the domestic violence complaint to be struck off.
4. It is also contended by the petitioner that the DVC complaint has been filed with malafide intention to harass the petitioners and there is absolutely no merit in the allegations made in the DVC complaint. It is also stated that the wife has been living separately from the husband for over ten years, and the domestic violence complaint is also be barred by limitation. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings for divorce have already been initiated and the same is pending.
5. Insofar as the other revision, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that at the time of marriage, though the petitioner and the respondent were living in the shared house along with the parents of the petitioner/husband, subsequently the petitioner has left the matrimonial home, and the husband has also been living separately from his parents, in a rented accommodation, and for nearly 10 years the wife never chose to seek any residential orders or direction, and only in order to harass the mother-in-law, the respondent has filed an interlocutory application seeking residential protection, that too in the place where the husband does not reside, but only the mother-in- law resides.
6. The learned counsel would further state that the order of the judicial magistrate would only further sour the relationship and complicate the matters, and in fact the learned counsel also offers to provide a rental accommodation up to a maximum of Rs.10000/- per month and undertakes to pay the rental advance for such residential accommodation, to be taken up by the respondent/wife.
7. Per contra, Mrs.S.Bhargavi Gopalan, learned counsel for the respondent, would state that the allegations that are made in the DVC have to be tested, only by entering into the witness box and leading oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners have not made out any case of lack of patent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, which alone would warrant striking off the complaint even under the Protection for Women under the Domestic Violence Act. She would further contend that the judicial magistrate has not committed any error in allowing the miscellaneous petition for residential protection since there is accommodation available in th
