C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1282 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1282 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.6306 of 2023 1. Karthikeyan 2. Duraisamy 3. Rajalakshmi 4. Selvi ... Petitioners Vs Haripriya ... Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to call for the entire proceedings in D.V.C.No. 6 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Musiri and strike off the same as illegal. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Malaiyendran For Respondent : Mr.K.Arunraj O R D E R The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by the respondent against the petitioners. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1282 of 2023 2. The first petitioner is the husband, petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law and the 4th petitioner is the sister-in-law of the respondent. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit the respondent filed a false complaint under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act in order to harass the petitioners. According to him, in the complaint preferred by the respondent, there is no specific overt act attributed against the petitioners. In such circumstances, the initiation of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act is abuse of process of law. 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 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:- 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1282 of 2023 “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.” 5. In view of the availability of alternative remedy before the Magistrate, as held by the 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 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1282 of 2023 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. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned Magistrate for getting appropriate remedy in terms of the order passed in Arul Daniel case cited supra. 7. Since the complaint preferred by the first respondent under Sections 18 to 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are predominantly civil in nature, the personal appearance of the petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri, is dispensed with, unless their presence is absolutely necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. 17.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1282 of 2023 To 1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Musiri 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1282 of 2023 S.SOUNTHAR, J. vsm C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1282 of 2023 17.07.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis