K.Harish @ Vipin Chanderan v. Harini

ORDER The civil revision petition has been filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by the respondent under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act.

¶2The 1st petitioner is the husband of the respondent/complainant. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of the respondent.

¶3It is the case of the petitioners that in the averments made by the respondent in her complaint, no case is made out against the petitioners for proceeding under the provisions of domestic violence act.

¶4The 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 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 Domestic Violence Act. 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 Page3 of 5 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.

¶5In view of the availability of alternative remedy before Magistrate, as held by Full Bench in Arul Daniel case, this Court is not inclined to exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Shabha Vs Tuticorin Educational Society reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019 held that availability of alternative remedy before regular Courts, is near total bar for exercise of supervisory power by High Court. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in revision.

¶6Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned Magistrate for getting appropriate remedy in terms of order passed in Arul Daniel case cited supra. Page4 of 5

¶7Having regard to the fact the complaint preferred under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act is predominantly civil in nature, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate unless it is absolutely necessary. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 16-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nr To The XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet. Page5 of 5

S.SOUNTHAR, J. nr CRP No. 100 of 2024 and CMP.No.490 and 19063 of 2024 16-02-2026

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR CRP No. 100 of 2024 and CMP.No.490 and 19063 of 2024 1. K.Harish @ Vipin Chanderan 2. K. Jayanirmalavalli 3. R. Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs Mrs.Harini ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records of the complaint in DVC No.81 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and quash the same. For Petitioner(s): No appearance For Respondent(s): M/s.B.Sharmila for M/s.T.Vidya Sagar Page2 of 5