IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 3484 of 2025 and CMP Nos.18925 and 18926 of 2025

1. Gowri Shankar, S/o.Beemarao, No.1, Vaalmigi Street, Kambar Nagar Extn., Periyar Nagar, Chennai -600 082.

2. B.Geetha, W/o.Beemarao, No.1, Vaalmigi Street, Kambar Nagar Extn., Periyar Nagar, Chennai -600 082.

3. G.Beemarao, S/o.Govindarajalu, No.1, Vaalmigi Street, Kambar Nagar Extn., Periyar Nagar, Chennai -600 082.

4. Sathish, S/o.Beemarao, No.1, Vaalmigi Street, Kambar Nagar Extn., Periyar Nagar, Chennai -600 082.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. M.Uma Maheshwari, W/o.Gowri Sankar, D/o.Mariyappan, No.5, Ramesh Mudhaliyar Street, Vallalar Nagar, Sainaathapuram, Vellore-632 001.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No.14/2025 pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Vellore.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. D.Ashokkumar For Respondent(s): Mr. J.Kather Hussain

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by the respondent/wife under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

2. The first petitioner is husband and the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are the parents in-law of the respondent. The other petitioners are the family members of the first petitioner.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent filed divorce petition in HMOP No.195 of 2024. Thereafter, only qw an after thought, she preferred the present complaint with false allegations against the petitioners.

4. In view of the Law settled by this Court in Arul Daniel and Others Versus Suganya reported in (2022) SCC Online Mad 5435, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the initiation of the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, it is for them to move the very same Magistrate raising preliminary issues.

The relevant observation of Full Bench reads as follows:-

87(vii). As there is no issuance of process as contemplated under Section 204, Cr.P.C. in a proceeding under the D.V. Act, the principle laid down in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal ((2004) 7 SCC 338) that a process, under Section 204, Cr.P.C, once issued cannot be reviewed or recalled, will not apply to a proceeding under the D.V. Act. Consequently, it would be open to an aggrieved respondent (s) to approach the Magistrate and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues. Issues like the existence of a shared household/domestic relationship etc., which form the jurisdictional basis for entertaining an application under Section 12, can be determined as a preliminary issue, in appropriate cases. Any person aggrieved by such an order may also take recourse to an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act for effective redress (See V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu V., (2010) 87 AIC 367). This would stem the deluge of petitions challenging the maintainability of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, at the threshold before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Hence, this court is not inclined to exercise its Supervisory Power available under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off the complaint.

5. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. The petitioners are at liberty to move the concerned Magistrate for getting appropriate remedy as per law laid down in Arul Daniel case.

6. Taking into consideration the proceedings initiated before learned Magistrate is predominantly civil in nature, the personal appearance of the petitioners during enquiry before Magistrate is dispensed with, unless their personal appearance is absolutely necessary.

03.12.2025 Internet: yes Index: Yes/No Neutral citation: Yes/No MST To The Additional Mahila Court, Vellore.

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

MST

03.12.2025