IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

CRP No. 6019 of 2025 and

CMP Nos.29760 and 29761 of 2025

1. Rajendran.R

S/o Ramachandran, No 6/14, 3rd

Street, Gandhi Nagar, Kodungaiyur,

Chennai 600 118. 2. Subbulakshmi

W/o Ramachandran, No 6/14, 3rd

Street, Gandhi Nagar, Kodungaiyur,

Chennai 600 118. 3. Ramachandran

S/o. late. Perumal No 6/14, 3rd Street,

Gandhi Nagar, Kodungaiyur,

Petitioner(s)

Chennai 600 118.

Vs

1. RATHNAMALA

W/o Rajendran, No 68, Dhanalakshmi

Nagar, 1st Veerapuram, Old Kanniamman Nagar, Avadi,

Chennai 600 055

2.Kanishka

Minor rep by her mother and Natural

guardian D/o Rajendran, No 68,

Dhanalakshmi Nagar, 1st Veerapuram,

Old Kanniamman Nagar, Avadi,

Chennai 600 055

3.Dhanush Minor rep by her mother and Natural guardian S/o Rajendran, No 68, Dhanalakshmi Nagar, 1st Veerapuram, Old Kanniamman Nagar, Avadi, Chennai 600 055

4.Sudharshan Minor rep by her mother and Natural guardian S/o Rajendran, No 68, Dhanalakshmi Nagar, 1st Veerapuram, Old Kanniamman Nagar, Avadi, Respondent(s)

Chennai 600 055 PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike out the proceedings as against petitioners 2 and 3 in DVC No.

22 /2025 pending before Judicial Magistrate Court at Ambattur.

For Petitioner(s): Ms.S.Sasikala

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to strike off the complaint in DVC No.22 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, preferred by the respondents as against the petitioners herein.

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

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the complaint was preferred by the respondents nearly after 12 years from the date of solemnisation of marriage solemnized between the first petitioner and the first respondent and also after two years from the date of separation. He further submitted that, the allegations contained in the complaint are false and the same were made just to take vengeance against the petitioners. Hence, the complaint preferred by the respondents as against the petitioners 2 and 3 herein is liable to be struck off.

4. 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 Magistrate can go before the very same Magistrate, raising preliminary objections. If any order is passed, the aggrieved person can also take recourse to an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act. 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. Connec