C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3255 of 2024 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06.08.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3255 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.18757 to 18759 of 2024 1.Chellapapa 2.Shanthi 3.Revathi ... Petitioners Vs 1.Nandhini 2.Minor.Sairithivika Represented through her Natural guardian and mother Nandhini 3.Minor Krishticka Sri 4.A.Sankar 5.Sabina Baby ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records of the D.V.C.No.23/2024 on the file of the Honourable Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru and to strike off the same and allow this Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioners : Mr.SK.Pavithra For Respondents : Mr.P.Surliraja for R1 to R3 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3255 of 2024 O R D E R This Civil Revision is filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by the respondents 1 to 3 under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. 2. The first petitioner is the mother-in-law of the first respondent. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the sister-in-law of the first respondent. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submits that the petitioners 2 and 3 are the married sisters and they reside elsewhere. In such circumstances, the petitioners 2 and 3 are not having shared household with the first respondent. It is further stated that the allegation against the first petitioner is vague and in the absence of any specific allegation, the Magistrate ought not to have issued process against the petitioners. 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 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3255 of 2024 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 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.” 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3255 of 2024 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 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 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, Thiruvaiyaru, is dispensed with, unless their presence is absolutely 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3255 of 2024 necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed. 06.08.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vsm To 1. The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvaiyaru. 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.3255 of 2024 S.SOUNTHAR, J. vsm C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.3255 of 2024 06.08.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis