SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74858

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice S. SOUNTHAR
Sowndariya – Appellant
Versus
Vijayalakshmi – Respondent



##PAGE1##

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023

and

C.M.P.Nos.13112 and 13114 of 2023

Sowndariya ... Petitioner

vs.

1.Vijayalakshmi

2.Mathan

3.Parameswari ... Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, to call for the records of D.V.C.No.09 of 2022 on the

file of the Additional Mahaleer Judicial Magistrate Court, Villupuram and

strike off the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Saravanan

For R1 : Mr.D.Raghu

For R2 and R3 : Mr.G.Hariharan

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 04:37:10 pm )

##PAGE2##

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to strike off the complaint

preferred by the 1st respondent/wife under the provisions of Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in D.V.C.No.09 of 2022 on the

file of the Additional Mahaleer Judicial Magistrate Court, Villupuram.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is not a family member of the 2nd respondent/husband and

therefore, there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and

respondents. In such circumstances, the complaint preferred by the

1st respondent against the petitioner under the provisions of Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is not at all maintainable and

the same is liable to be quashed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit

that the complaint has been dismissed for default on 08.10.2025. It is also

stated that an application has been filed to restore the same.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 04:37:10 pm )

##PAGE3##

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023

4. If it is the case of the petitioner that she never had any kind of

domestic relationship with the respondents and therefore, the complaint is

not at all maintainable, it is always open to her to raise preliminary issues

before the concerned Judicial Magistrate by filing an application, in case the

complaint is restored.

5. 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

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/01/2026 04:37:10 pm )

##PAGE4##

C.R.P.No.2154 of 2023

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.”

6. 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

a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top