BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and C.M.P. (MD) Nos. 6820 and 6822 of 2024

1.C.Chandru

2.C.Shanthi

3.S.Chinnasamy ... Petitioners -vs-

1.S.Shivani

2.The District Social Welfare Officer, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the entire records pertaining to the proceedings initiated by the Additional Mahila Court, (Magisterial Level), Dindigul in D.V.O.P. No. 18 of 2024 and strike off the same.

For Petitioners : Mr. R.Anand

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition invoking under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed to strike-off the petition in D.V.O.P. No.

18 of 2024 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, (Magisterial Level), Dindigul (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) .

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as by the description in the proceedings in D.V.O.P. No. 18 of 2024 before the Trial Court for the sake of clarity and convenience.

3. Heard Mr. R.Anand, Learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record apart from the pleadings of the parties.

4. Before proceeding further, it must be recapitulated here that the Full Bench of this Court in Arul Daniel -vs- Suganya (Order dated 17.11.2022 in Crl. O. P. S.R. No. 31852 of 2022 and etc., batch) has examined on a reference the following questions of law:-

(i) Whether a proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.

for short') ?

(ii) Whether the aforesaid remedy is available to an aggrieved person before approaching the learned Magistrate and, if necessary, the Court of Sessions by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act?

The said reference has been answered as follows:-

“(i) A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is not maintainable. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable on a limited ground of patent lack of jurisdiction, as indicated in paragraphs 40 and 41, supra.

(ii) Except on the limited ground indicated, supra, jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution will not be exercised, as a measure of self- imposed restriction, by-passing the statutory remedies under the D.V. Act in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai -vs- Tuticorin Educational Society [(2019) 9 SCC 538)].

(iii) In the light of the aforesaid conclusions, we uphold the decision of N.

Anand Venkatesh, J. in Dr. P. Pathmanathan -vs- V. Monica [(2021) 1 MLJ 311], including the directions set out, in paragraph 52 in their entirety, though, in our view, the reference to Section 483 Cr.P.C. therein, may not be appropriate. The decision of the Division Bench in P. Ganesan -vs- M. Revathy Prema Rubarani [C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 909 &

915 of 2021], to the extent that it is contrary to this opinion, shall stand overruled. Ex consequenti, the decisions of learned single judges in S. Gowrishankar -vs- Deepa [2014 SCC OnLine Mad 12443] , Sathiyaseelan -vs- Preethi [2018 SCC OnLine Mad 7641], G. Jayakumar -vs- Jayanthi [Crl.OP No. 17235 of 2016 ], Mohana Seshathri -vs- E. Anuja [(2021) 2 LW 509 ], and other cases following or adopting the line of reasoning therein, shall stand overruled, to the extent that they are contrary to the view taken herein.

(iv) As a sequitur to the above, it must necessarily follow that the petitions in this batch are not maintainable. We, therefore, see no useful purpose in remitting the matter to the learned single judge to perform the obsequies. Accordingly, exercising power under Order I Rule 7 of the Appellate Side Rules, we hold that all the petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall stand dismissed at the SR stage itself, preserving all the rights and contentions of the