IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.Nos.8986 and 8988 of 2024

1.Sachin Sudhakaran

2.VK Sudhakaran

3.Syamala Sudhakaran ... Petitioners vs.

Chandana.G ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to strike off the petition filed by the Respondent in D.V.C.No.106 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Ravi Shankar For Respondent : Mr.Rahul Jagannathan

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to strike off the complaint preferred by the respondent/wife under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in D.V.C.No.106 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondent never lived with petitioners 2 and 3 and therefore, there is no shared household to invoke the provisions of Domestic Violence Act as against the petitioners 2 and 3. Therefore, the complaint preferred by the respondent against the petitioners shall be struck off.

3. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arul Daniel and Others Versus Suganya reported in (2022) SCC Online Mad 5435 held that any person aggrieved by the process issued by the Judicial Magistrate can go before the very same Judicial Magistrate and raise preliminary objections with regard to the issues like existence of a shared household/domestic relationship etc. If any order is passed, the aggrieved person can also take recourse to an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The relevant portion 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.”

4. In view of the categorical pronouncement of law by the Full Bench of this Court that a person aggrieved by issuance of process can very well approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate raising preliminary issues and hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When petitioner has remedy before Regular Magistrate, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Shabha Vs Tuticorin Educational Society reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019, this Court need not exercise supervisory jurisdiction.

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the very same Judicial Magistrate namely Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, raising preliminary issues. If any such application is filed and preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the petition against revision petitioners is raised, the Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, shall consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.

6. The complaint preferred by the respondent seeking various orders under Section