CRP/3057/2026 of Shruthi Thilak Vs Prabhu Tilak on 13 November 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India seeking to strike off the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.1498 of 2026 in DVC.No.95 of 2022 pending before the 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai (for short, the Court below) on the ground of abuse of legal process.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4. The petitioner – wife filed D.V.C.No.95 of 2022 before the Court below under Section 12 read with Sections 17 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for brevity, the Act) seeking for various reliefs including the protection order, the residence order and other monetary reliefs.

5. In the said case, the respondent – husband filed Crl.M.P.No. 1498 of 2026 seeking to implead the proposed respondents 2 to 4 on the ground that the petitioner – wife was living in adultery with these three proposed respondents and that they were proper and necessary parties for deciding the main case.

6. The Court below entertained the said miscellaneous petition and it was numbered. Aggrieved by that, the above revision has been filed before this Court to strike off the said miscellaneous petition on the ground that it was an abuse of process of law.

7. The main ground that was urged on the side of the petitioner - wife was that the proposed respondents were strangers to the proceedings since they never had any domestic relationship or living in a shared household with her and that therefore, the Court below ought not to have even entertained the said miscellaneous petition.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – husband submitted that there were sufficient materials to establish the connection between the petitioner – wife and the three adulterers – proposed respondents to decide the fact in issue, that those persons were proper parties, whose presence would be required for the Court below to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceedings, that as the reliefs sought for by the petitioner – wife in the main case were civil in nature, the principles of the Civil Procedure Code would certainly apply and that therefore, the provisions of Order I Rule 10 could be invoked to implead the necessary and proper parties.

9. It was further submitted on the side of the respondent - husband that the issue as to whether the parties concerned were necessary/proper parties should be decided by the Court below, that the Court below possesses the jurisdiction to deal with the said miscellaneous petition and that it did not warrant the interference of this Court under Article 227 of The Constitution of India.

10. In the considered view of this Court, it must be made clear that while this Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 227 of The Constitution of India with respect to domestic violence cases, the Court must only see if the Court below manifestly lacks jurisdiction to deal with the same. It is not necessary for this Court to decide as to whether the parties sought to be impleaded are necessary/proper parties or they are, at the best, necessary witnesses, who need not be impleaded and can only be called and examined as witnesses. Such enquiry will, in fact, intrude upon the jurisdiction of the Court below, if it is vested with that jurisdiction.

11. The narrow scope of consideration in this revision petition is as to whether the Court below can deal with the said miscellaneous petition filed by the respondent – husband seeking to implead third parties in the main case.

12. The scope of a petition filed under the Act is to provide remedy to the aggrieved person namely the woman against violence of any kind especially when it occurs within family and therefore, the remedy provided under the Act is an amalgamation of civil rights of the aggrieved person.

13. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arul Daniel Vs. Suganya [reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Madras 5435] held that the proceedings under the Act are civil in nature.

14. Section 28(2) of the Act empowers the Court to lay down its own procedure for disposal of applications. The said miscellaneous petition has been purportedly filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, which has been made applicable to the concerned Court/Magistrate by the Full Bench of this Court.

15. Therefore, without going into the merits of the said miscellaneous petition and dealing with the issue as to whether the proposed respondents are proper/necessary parties, this Court holds that the Court below possesses the jurisdiction to decide the said miscellaneous petition. Ex consequenti, the miscellaneous petition, which is pending before the Court below, cannot be struck off by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of The

Constitution of India.

16. In the result, the above civil revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the 23rd Metropolitan Magisterial Court, Saidapet, Chennai to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.1498 of 2026 on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording an opportunity to both parties within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the main case itself is pending from the year 2022, there shall be a direction to the 23rd Metropolitan Magisterial Court, Saidapet, Chennai to dispose of D.V.C.No.95 of 2022 within a period of three months after deciding Crl.M.P.No.1498 of 2026. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMP is closed. 13-11-2026 To The 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai RS

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS

CRP.No.3057 of 2026& CMP.No.13049 of 2026 13-11-2026