Madras High Court
CRP/6077/2026 of RENUKA Vs JAISY RANI on 5 October 2026
CRP.No.6077 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.6077 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012200932026}
and
CMP.No.26295 of 2026
Renuka
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Jaisy Rani
2. Jayaprakash
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the petition in D.V.C.No.53 of 2026 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai against the Revision Petitioner.
For Petitioner
: Mr.R.Muthukumar
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to strike off the complaint preferred by the 1st repsondent in D.V.C.No.53 of 2026 on the file of
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:35 pm )
CRP.No.6077 of 2026
Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, against the Revision Petitioner.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is no specific allegations as against the petitioner and based on the vague omni bus allegations, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ought not to have issued process to the petitioner. Therefore, the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent against the petitioner shall be struck off.
3. 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 Judicial Magistrate can go before the very same Judicial 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 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 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
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:35 pm )
CRP.No.6077 of 2026
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.”
4. In view of the categorical pronouncement of law by the Full Bench of this Court that a person aggrieved by issuance of process can very well approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate raising preliminary issues and hence, this Court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. When petitioner has remedy before Regular Magistrate, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Shabha Vs Tuticorin Educational Society reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019, this Court need not exercise supervisory jurisdiction.
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:35 pm )
CRP.No.6077 of 2026
5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the very same Judicial Magistrate namely Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, raising preliminary issues. If any such application is filed and preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the petition against revision petitioners is raised, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, shall consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
6. The complaint preferred by the 1st respondent seeking various orders under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are predominantly civil in nature and therefore, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai, unless her presence is absolutely necessary. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dm
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:35 pm )
CRP.No.6077 of 2026
To The Metropolitan Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:35 pm )
CRP.No.6077 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR J. dm CRP.No.6077 of 2026 and CMP.No.26295 of 2026 05-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 06/10/2026 06:02:35 pm )