CRP/1620/2026 of I.Lenin Manvel Vs S.Libica Preethi on 16 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the proceedings in D.V.C.No.55 of 2025 on the file of XVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai and to strike off the proceedings.

2. The respondent initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners, who are the husband and mother-in-law and had sought for various reliefs.

3. The present revision has been filed on the ground that a false complaint has been given and all the family members have been roped in as parties and therefore, initiation of domestic violence proceedings is an abuse of process of law, which requires the interference of this Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record.

5. Insofar as the defence raised by the first petitioner is concerned, it has to be raised only before the Court below since the first petitioner is the husband.

6. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, she has taken a stand that she has nothing to do with the dispute between the first petitioner and respondent and she has been roped in only with a view to harass her without there being any cause of action against her.

7. The issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Arul Daniel and others v. Suganya and others [2022 (6) CTC 833]. The grievance expressed by the second petitioner can be worked out in line with the guidelines issued in paragraph No.76(ix) of the aforesaid judgment and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder: “76 (ix) In Kunapareddy (cited supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Order of a Magistrate purportedly exercising powers under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”), to permit the amendment of an Application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Taking a cue therefrom, it would be open to any of the Respondent(s), at any stage of the proceeding, to apply to the Magistrate to have their names deleted from the array of Respondents if they have been improperly joined as parties. For this purpose, the Magistrate can draw sustenance from the power under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. A judicious use of this power would ensure that the proceedings under the D.V.Act do not generate into a weapon of harassment and would prevent the process of Court from being abused by joining all and sundry as parties to the lis.”

8. The Full Bench made it very clear that an order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by striking down the proceedings will be passed only in cases where the Magistrate suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction. That is not the case here and the grievance expressed by the second petitioner can be dealt with by her before whom the Domestic Violence proceedings are pending.

9. In the light of the above discussion, it is left open to the second petitioner to move an appropriate application before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai, seeking to delete her name from the array of respondent and the same will be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunities to both parties. If such an

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. mp application is filed, it is left open to the respondent to file a counter. The second petitioner shall be permitted to be represented through counsel and her presence is dispensed with. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No mp To The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai. Civil Revision Petition No.1620 of 2026