The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arul Daniel & Ors. v. Suganya reported

CRP No. 977 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 26-02-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHARCRP No. 977 of 2026 andCMP.No.5251 of 20261.Vivekanadan2.Ratha..Petitioner(s)VsSwathi..Respondent(s)Prayer :-Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records pertaining to D.V.C. No.81 of 2025 and struck off the Domestic Violence proceedings in D.V.C.No.81 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Alandur. For Petitioner(s):M/s.Narmadha D.S for Mr.S.RavichandranORDER The civil revision petition has been filed seeking to quash the complaint preferred by the respondent under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act.2. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the respondent and 2nd petitioner is the mother-in-law. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the allegations contained in the complaint preferred by the respondent are very vague and ingredients of domestic violence are not satisfied.

Therefore, the learned Magistrate ought not have issued process to the petitioners based on vague allegations. It is further submitted that respondent has been living https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 977 of 2026__________Page2 of 4separately for the past two years and therefore, the allegations of harassment made against the petitioners are false.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 Magistrate can go before the very same 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 Domestic Violence Act. 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 977 of 2026__________Page3 of 4under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, at the threshold before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.4.

In view of the availability of alternative remedy before Magistrate, as held by Full Bench in Arul Daniel case, this Court is not inclined to exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Virudhunagar Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Shabha Vs Tuticorin Educational Society reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019 held that availability of alternative remedy before regular Courts, is near total bar for exercise of supervisory power by High Court. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in revision.5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned Magistrate for getting appropriate remedy in terms of order passed in Arul Daniel case cited supra. 6. Having regard to the fact the complaint preferred under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act is predominantly civil in nature, this Court is inclined to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate unless it is absolutely necessary.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.26-02-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/Nonr https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 977 of 2026__________Page4 of 4S.SOUNTHAR, J.nrToThe Additional Mahila Court, Alandur.CRP No. 977 of 2026 andCMP.No.5251 of 202626-02-2026