Madras High Court
CRL RC/2243/2026 of V.K. Lakshmi Vs D. Tamilselvi on 30 September 2026
Crl.R.C.No.2243 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.R.C.No.2243 of 2026
and
Crl.M.P.No.18519 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010704102026}
V.K.Lakshmi
..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. D.Tamilselvi
2. Minor E.D.Srinithi
Rep. by her Mother/1st petitioner
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 438(1) r/w. 442 of the BNSS 2023, seeking to set aside the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode in Crl.A.No.228 of 2018 in Crl.M.P.No.7219 of 2017 in D.V.C.No.15 of 2016 and confirm the order dated 22.06.2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.7219 of 2017 in D.V.C.No.15 of 2016 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Erode and allow this Criminal Revision Case.
For Petitioner(s)
: Mr.Sharath Chandran
for Mr.N.Manojkumar
For Respondent(s)
: Mr.N.S.Suganthan
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
This revision challenges the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode, in Crl.A.No.228 of 2018,
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:27 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.2243 of 2026
setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, in Crl.M.P.No.7219 of 2017 in D.V.C.No.15 of 2016, in and by which, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the prayer of the respondents herein to make certain amendments in their D.V.C. complaint and prayer.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2.1 The 1st respondent is the wife and one K.Duraisamy, who is the son of the petitioner herein. The respondents filed a domestic violence complaint in D.V.C.No.15 of 2016 against the said K.Duraisamy and the petitioner. Among the reliefs sought in the said D.V.C complaint, is the prayer to reside in the shared household, which is said to be belonging to the said K.Duraisamy, After filing the complaint, the respondents sought to add certain averments to the complaint to establish the right of the 1st respondent’s husband over the property where they are residing.
2.2. The trial Court dismissed the said prayer, stating that those facts are not necessary to decide the right of the respondents to reside in the shared household, as the title to the property had already been decided in a suit in O.S.No.743 of 1997, subsequently re-numbered as O.S.No.743 of 2004, on the file of the I Additional District Magistrate Court, Erode. However, the Appellate Court, vide the impugned order, stated that those facts are necessary and that, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in the D.V.C complaint, if those averments are made in the petition and consequently permitted the amendment.
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:27 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.2243 of 2026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amendments to the averments and the prayer now sought to be made by the respondents, are at the instance of the said K.Duraisamy, husband of the 1st respondent; that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property, and that, since the title to the property is not relevant to decide the issue of the respondents’ right to reside in the shared household, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, would submit that no prejudice would be caused by incorporating these averments in the petition and by allowing the amendment petition, as the learned Magistrate, in any case, cannot decide the title to the property.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
6. Admittedly, the dispute with regard to the title was adjudicated in O.S.No.743 of 1997, subsequently re-numbered as O.S.No.743 of 2004, on the file of the I Additional District Magistrate Court, Erode. The right of the respondents to reside in the shared household would not depend on the title of the 1st respondent’s husband to the property.
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:27 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.2243 of 2026
7. In any case, the learned Magistrate, while deciding the D.V.C complaint, cannot decide any dispute with regard to the title to the property. The averments and the prayer that are sought to be amended relates only to the title to the property, which, according to the petitioner, belongs to her.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate was right in holding that the amendment petition filed by the respondents to establish that the property is a joint family property is devoid of merits.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode in Crl.A.No.228 of 2018 (arising out of Crl.M.P.No.7219 of 2017 in D.V.C.No.15 of 2016) is set aside, by holding that the order of the learned Magistrate is justified.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 30.09.2026 skt Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:27 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.2243 of 2026
To:
1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode.
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:27 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.2243 of 2026
SUNDER MOHAN, J. skt Crl.R.C.No.2243 of 2026 and Crl.M.P.No.18519 of 2026 30.09.2026
( Uploaded on: 07/10/2026 04:39:27 pm )