IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.Nos.9630 and 9633 of 2023

1.Thiyagarajan

2.Suseela

3.Dhanam ... Petitioners vs.

1.Shyamala

2.Rajasekar ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the records pertaining to D.V.C.No.32 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court – JM Level), Perambalur.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Palanisamy For R1 : Mr.R.Ganeshkumar For R2 : No Appearance

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by the 1^st respondent under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in D.V.C.No.32 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila Court – JM Level), Perambalur.

2. The 2^nd respondent is the husband of the 1^st respondent. The

1^st petitioner is the uncle of the 2^nd respondent. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the aunty of the 2^nd respondent. It is stated by the petitioners that the petitioners 1 and 2 are residing at Cuddalore District and they no way connected with the respondents, who resided at Perambalur District. In nutshell, it is the case of the petitioners that they never had any shared household with the respondents and therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued process to them.

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 petitioners have remedy before Regular Magistrate, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and others vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and others reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019, this Court need not exercise it’s supervisory jurisdiction.

5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the very same Judicial Magistrate raising preliminary issues. If any such application is filed and preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the petition against revi