CRP/2681/2026 of R.Martin Vs Princy Martin on 13 August 2026

ORDER

The revision petitioners are the respondents in Domestic Violence proceedings initiated by the respondent, who is the wife of the first revision petitioner. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The respondent filed DVC. No.12 of 2021 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet for various reliefs under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. Pending the said DVC proceedings, Crl.M.P. No.16 of 2021 came to be filed by the respondent /wife and on enquiry, the said Application was dismissed by the Magistrate. The same was challenged in the Crl.A. No.1038 of 2025 before the XXII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. Pending the said Criminal Appeal, Crl.M.P. Nos.2 of 2025 was filed by the respondent/wife seeking interim orders. In the said Application, the Appellate Court viz., the XXII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai has passed an order of status quo, which is now being challenged by the husband and his sister who are the revision petitioners herein.

3. I have heard Mr.Sarath Chandran, for Mr.R.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.Palaniappan, for Mrs.T.Hemalatha, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Mr.Sarath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners, inviting my attention to the relief sought for by the respondent herein, contends that the said interim application was filed seeking residence and protection orders pending the DVC proceedings and besides other reliefs under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 r/w 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned Judicial Magistrate, partly allowed the Application by giving relief under Section 18, restraining the petitioners from committing any act of the Domestic Violence against the respondent/wife and also under Section 19, restraining the petitioners from interfering with the peaceful residence of the Saidapet property under the occupation of the respondent/wife, till disposal of the main Domestic Violence proceedings. The other interim reliefs sought for by the respondent/wife under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 r/w 23 of the Act, were rejected. Aggrieved by the disallowed reliefs, the respondent/wife has preferred a Crl.A. No.1038 of 2025.

5. Pending the Criminal Appeal, she has also filed Crl.MP. No.1 of 2025 seeking an extension of interim injunction which was originally granted on 05.02.2021, by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and Crl.M.P. No.2 of 2025, seeking a stay of the operative portion of the order dated 20.08.2025, passed in Crl.M.P. No.16 of 2021, on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, in DVC No.12 of 2021.

6. Mr.Sarath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners would strightaway contend that in an Application seeking stay, the Appellate Court could not have granted an order of status quo, restraining the petitioners from dealing with the subject properties, especially when it has been found and recorded earlier that the interim injunction that was originally granted by the Magistrate was not extended beyond 07.10.2021. Mr.Sarath Chandran, learned counsel also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Samir Narain Bhojwani Vs. Aurora Properties and Investments and another, reported in (2018) 17 SCC 203, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power of the Court to mould relief in favour of the party to the litigation, in order to do substantial justice, can be exercised only when finally disposing of the proceedings and not at the interlocutory stage. Mr.Sarath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for the revision being allowed.

7. Per contra, Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the respondent/wife would contend that the petitioners, taking advantage of the fact that the interim injunction which was originally granted exparte was not extended beyond 07.10.2021, have proceeded to sell properties left, right and centre, are thereby defeating the very purpose of the Applications filed in the DVC proceedings. He would also state that the laudable provisions protecting the interest of the wife, which have been incorporated in the enactment, have literally been made unavailable in view of the reckless alienations being made. He would also point out that even subsequent to the exparte interim injunction and during the subsistence of the interim order, the petitioners committed contempt by alienating some of the properties. He would therefore state that by granting an order of status quo, despite no application having been made for interim injunction, the Appellate Court has not committed any error.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that the Appellate Court has only protected the interest of the respondent and no prejudice has been caused by directing the petitioners to maintain status quo as the said order only preserves the subject properties, what little is available, despite many encumbrances and alienations effected by the petitioners. Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the respondent/wife would also invite my attention to some photographs annexed to the typedset of papers filed by the respondent, to evidence the high-handed and arbitrary action against the petitioners, including altering the physical features of the property, in order to defeat the right and entitlement of the respondent/wife.

9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

10. The respondent/wife in DVC No.12 of 2021, took out an application in Crl.M.P. No.16 of 2021. An exparte order of injunction was granted in the said CMP, on 05.02.2021, till 26.02.2021. However, admittedly, the said interim order was extended subsequently, upto 07.10.2021 alone. The final order in Crl.M.P. No.16 of 2021, dated 20.08.2025 also records the said factum. At paragraph 8.2, the Magistrate also recorded the fact that an application to revoke the exparte interim order was taken out by the revision petitioners in Crl.M.P. No.6182 of 2021, which was dismissed for default on 16.06.2023. At paragraph No.8.6 of the order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, found that the interim releifs sought for are substantially same as those claimed in the main petition and that the petitioner has already approached this Court and obtained an order of injunction restraining the revision petitioner from alienating some of the properties and that as against the same, an appeal has been preferred by the revision petitioners and the same is pending. In view of the above, the Magistrate has declined the prayer for injunction in respect of the very same properties, as it would amount to re-agitating the lis, which is already before this Court in appeal proceedings.

11. As already discussed, the Magistrate granted interim protection under Section 18 and 19 of the Act alone, while declining other reliefs. Challenging the denied reliefs, the respondent/wife filed Crl.A. No.1038 of 2025. Two Miscellaneous Petitions were filed in the said Criminal Appeal, one Application was seeking an extension of the interim injunction granted on 05.02.2021 in Crl.M.P. No.1 of 2025 and in Crl.M.P. No.2 of 2025, the revision petitioners sought for stay of the operational portion of the order dated 20.08.2025 in Crl.M.P. No.16 of 2021. In and by the impugned order, the Appellate Court rightly dismissed the Crl.M.P. No.1 of 2025, finding that the Application itself is not maintainable. However, insofar as the Crl.M.P. No.2 of 2025, the Appellate Court issued a direction that both the parties shall maintain status quo as on date of the order viz., 09.10.2025. The Appellate Court in fact, came to a conclusion that the respondent is not entitled to interim stay of the operation of the order in Crl.M.P. No.16 of 2021, as sought for by the respondent/wife. However, in the interest of justice, the Appellate Court, without giving any further reasons, has directed both parties to maintain status quo.

12. No doubt, a Court of law is entitled to mould relief, if circumstances so warrant. However, such exercise of power to mould relief is available only at the time of disposing of the proceedings finally, while giving a quietus to the lis. Such power to mould relief cannot be exercised by a Court at the interim stage, that too, while deciding Interlocutory Applications. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samir Narain Bhojwani's case (referred herein supra), has specifically laid down this principle by stating that the invocation of principle of moulding of relief at an interlocutory stage is manifestly wrong. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Court, on this ground alone, deserves to be set aside. There is yet another reason for the revision petitioners being entitled to succeed. In the affidavit filed in support of the Crl.M.P. No.2 of 2025, admittedly, the prayer is not seeking any interim injunction to restrain the petitioners from encumbering or alienating subject properties. In fact, I find that even for seeking an interim stay, excepting for narrating the trajectory of the case, right from the filing of the DVC proceedings, not a single ground or reason has been set out as to why the respondent is entitled to grant of stay of the operational portion of the order dated 20.08.2025. In fact, in the very same order in Crl.M.P. No.16 of 2021, the Metropolitan Magistrate has granted interim protection under Section 18 and 19 of the Act, while dismissing the other interim reliefs sought for. I can atleast understand if it was the case of the respondent/wife that taking advantage of the interim order not being extended, the petitioners are continuing to deal with the properties to the detriment and interest of the respondent/wife and therefore, an injunction should be granted. Even the dismissal of Crl.M.P. No.1 of 2025, has not been challenged by the respondent/wife. Therefore, in the absence of any prayer for injunction, and when the interim injunction granted exparte was vacated as early as 07.10.2021 and subsequently, Crl.M.P. No.16 of 2021 itself being finally adjudicated, I do not see how on the strength of the averments in the affidavit in support of the

Crl.M.P. No.2 of 2025, the Appellate Court could have ventured to grant an order of status quo. The said order of status quo is clearly against the ratio laid down in Samir Narain Bhojwani's case (referred herein supra) as well.

13. For all the above reasons, I am inclined to allow this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order of status quo, granted in Crl.M.P. No. 2 of 2025 in Crl.A. No.1038 of 2025, dated 09.10.2025, is set aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No costs.

21-08-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes RKP To The XXII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP Pre-delivery Order in CRP. No.2681 of 2026 and CMP. Nos.11291 & 11292 of 2026 21-08-2026