The court held that domestic violence claims require specific allegations against all accused and highlighted limitations on Article 227 jurisdiction concerning trial processes.

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.7 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valangaiman, Thiruvarur District.

2.The learned counsel appearing 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, which constrained the petitioners to move this Court.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that while entertaining the complaint, the Court below had not taken into account that the respondent/wife had filed two cases on the same day on 04.07.2024, viz.,D.V.C No.7 of 2024 and for the restitution of conjugal rights, in H.M.O.P.No.35 of 2024 on the file of Sub-Court, Nagapattanam. The learned counsel would submit that the marriage was solemnized on 20.08.2021 and thereafter upto

25.08.2021, the respondent/wife lived with the 1st petitioner in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the respondent/wife has got an appointment in UCO Bank at Ariyalur District and she used to stay in Ariyalur in a hostel, while the 1st petitioner is residing in Thiruvarur District and his parents, viz., 2nd and 3rd petitioners who are in-laws are also residing in Thiruvarur District. The 4th petitioner who is the uncle of the 1st petitioner and his wife the 5th petitioner are residing in Thanjavur District. The 6th petitioner aged about 65 years is the 2nd own sister of 2nd petitioner and they are not in joint family relationship, living at Mannargudi Taluk, Thiruvarur District. The respondent/wife is working in the UCO Bank, Ariyalur branch immediately after the marriage and now she is working in Papanasam near her native place. The learned counsel would further submit that the 1st petitioner has sent a letter dated 08.11.2022 to the respondent/wife, seeking her to come and live with him. However, even after receiving the said letter and in spite of several efforts made by him, the respondent/wife did not come forward to live together with him. The 1st petitioner sent a legal notice dated 13.07.2023 to the respondent/wife seeking her to come and live with him.

4.The learned counsel would contend that in the documents relied upon by the respondent/wife, there is absolutely no whisper about any acts of domestic violence. Therefore, when no specific overtact of domestic violence has been pleaded specifically against the petitioners and as against the in-laws father-in-law and mother-in-law and the relatives, the Court below ought not to have taken DVC case on the file. He would further submit that only in order to harass the petitioners, the DVC has been lodged. He would also state that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint and viewing the same with the surrounding circumstances, the conduct of the respondent/wife clearly indicates that she is attempting to compel the 1st petitioner to accept for restitution of conjugal rights. The learned counsel for the petitioners, to strengthen his contentions, has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reported in MANU/UP/0123/2025, Krishnawati Devi and Others Vs. State of U.P. And Others , to show that number of cases, where just to harass the family of husband (or) the person in domestic relationship, aggrieved party used to implicate the relatives of other side, who are not even living (or) lived with aggrieved person in shared household and they have been residing at sepa