##PAGE1##

2026:MHC:392

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Order reserved on : 28.01.2026 Order pronounced on : 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP.No.4429 of 2024

D.Malini ... Petitioner

Vs.

S.Vinodhalatha ... Respondent

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

India, to set aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 made in CRP.No.44

of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Coimbatore,

confirming the order dated 17.03.2023 made in CMP.No.12108 of 2022 in

D.V.A.No.62 of 2021, on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Domestic

Violence Act Cases, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Prabhakar

For Respondent : Mr.A.Ramkumar

1/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:47:40 pm )

ORDER

The 3^rd respondent, in domestic violence proceedings initiated by the

respondent herein, is the revision petitioner.

2.I have heard Mr.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and Mr.A.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the respondent. I have

also gone through the records filed by way of typed set of papers.

3.Brief facts of the case leading to the present revision petition:

The respondent herein, as petitioner, filed DVA.No.62 of 2021 before

the Special Court for Trial of Domestic Violence Act Cases, Coimbatore,

against her husband, the 1^st respondent. In the DVC proceedings, her

mother-in-law, the 2^nd respondent and the present revision petitioner, the 3^rd

respondent. The petitioner took out an application in CMP.No.12108 of

2022 in DVA.No.62 of 2021, seeking to delete or strike off the name of the

revision petitioner in the DVA. The said application, on enquiry, was

dismissed by the Special Court for Trial of Domestic Violence Act Cases, as

against which the petitioner preferred a revision in Criminal Revision

Petition No.44 of 2023. The said revision petition was also dismissed by the

2/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:47:40 pm )

III Additional District Court, Coimbatore. Challenging the said concurrent

orders, the present revision petition has been filed.

4.Mr.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner would firstly contend that the Special Court did not even consider

the application for striking off the name of the petitioner in a proper

perspective. Inviting my attention to the order passed by the Special Court,

the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is clear from the

face of the record that the Special Court has confused the issues before it

and has merely awarded maintenance payable to the respondent herein, by

the husband and has not expressed any final opinion with regard to the

request of the revision petitioner to be removed from the array of parties.

5.Mr.R.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner would also attack

the findings of the Appellate Court, in and whereby, the order of the Special

Court was confirmed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends

that the Court has failed to appreciate the definition of “domestic

relationship” and has also erroneously relied on the decision of the Kerala

John Idiculla and another vs. state of Kerala (2005 SCC

High Court in

3/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:47:40 pm )

Online Ker 231)

, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, has

not been approved by the Honourable Supreme Court in a later decision.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore state that the

petitioner, who is admittedly not related to the respondent and is only

alleged to be a concubine of the husband of the respondent cannot be

implicated in the domestic violence proceedings. In support of his

contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following

decisions :

1.U.Suvetha v. State, reported in (2009) 7 SCR 902.

2.Sunitha Jha vs State of Jharkhand reported in (2010) 11 SCR

648.

3.John Idiculla and another vs. state of Kerala reported in 2005

SCC Online Ker 231.

4.Smt. Harini v. Smt. Kavya and