CRP/6045/2026 of Ajith Vs Sivaranjani on 30 September 2026

Order

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking to quash the proceedings in DVC No.1 of 2023

on the file of the Judicial magistrate, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District.

2. The respondent initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners seeking various reliefs. The petitioners are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. According to them, petitioners 2 and 3 have been unnecessarily arrayed as parties with the intention of harassing them and, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be strike off insofar as they are concerned.

3. In the considered view of this Court, the grievance that has been expressed by the petitioners can be worked out before the Court below. If according to the petitioners 2 and 3, they have been arrayed as parties without any material, they can seek to have their names deleted from the array of respondents.

4. Insofar as the defence raised by the 1st petitioner is concerned, the same has to be raised only before the Court below since the 1st petitioner is the husband.

5. 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 petitioners 2

and 3 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.”

6. The Full Bench made it very clear that an order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India striking off the proceedings will be passed only in cases where the Magistrate suffers from a patent lack of jurisdiction. That is not the case here and the grievance expressed by the petitioners 2 and 3 can be dealt with by the Court before which the Domestic Violence proceedings are pending.

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA

7. In the light of the above discussion, it is left open to the petitioners 2 and 3 to move an appropriate application before the Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District, seeking to delete their names from the array of respondents and the same shall be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunities to both parties. If such an application is filed, it is left open to the respondents to file a counter. The petitioners 2 and 3 shall be permitted to be represented through counsel and their presence is dispensed with.

8. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The Judicial magistrate, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai District

AND CMP NO. 26201 OF 2026