Madras High Court
Rengaraj vs N.Suganya on 14 July, 2025
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
C.R.P.(MD)No.1003 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 14.07.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
C.R.P.[PD].(MD)No.1003 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5390 & 5391 of 2025
1.Rengaraj
2.Lakshmanaperumal
3.Vijayalakshmi
4.Nivethithabharathi
5.Prakash
6.Minor.P.Vidhyadhar ...Petitioners/Respondents
Vs.
N.Suganya ...Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to call for the records in D.V.C.No.10 of 2024, on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate NO.2, Sattur and struck off the same by allowing this Civil Revision
Petition.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar
For Respondent : Mrs.S.Mahalakshmi
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 12:58:27 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)No.1003 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to strike off the impugned
proceedings in D.V.C.No.10 of 2024, pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Sattur.
2. The petitioners herein are the respondents in D.V.C.No.10 of 2024,
before the trial Court. The respondent herein has filed D.V.C.No.10 of 2024,
before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, under the provisions of the
Domestic Violence Act and BNSS, 2023. Aggrieved against the D.V.C.No.10
of 2024 filed by the respondent against the petitioners, the present Civil
Revision Petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the
first petitioner is the husband, second petitioner is the father-in-law, third
petitioner is the mother-in-law, fourth petitioner is the sister-in-law, fifth
petitioner is the husband of the fourth petitioner and the sixth petitioner is the
son of the petitioners 4 & 5. He further submitted that the respondent has
initiated domestic violence proceedings against her husband in-laws. It is
submitted that the petitioners are in no way connected with the allegations made
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 12:58:27 pm )
by the respondent in the DVC case and though the first petitioner is ready and
willing to live with the respondent it is only the respondent who is not coming
to live with him and has initiated the present case. The respondent has made
some allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners 5 & 6 are the husband
and son of the fourth petitioner and they are no way connected with the
allegations made against them. On the basis of the general allegations, the
petitioners 5 & 6 need not be faced the trial. Accordingly, he prays for
quashing the DVC case with regard to the petitioners 5 & 6. Further, he
prays that the petitioners 1 to 4 may be permitted to raise all the grounds
mentioned herein before the trial court. He also requests this Court to dispense
with their personal appearance before the trial court.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also
considering the fact that the petitioners 5 & 6 are the husband and son of the
fourth petitioner and they are no way connected with the allegations made
against them, this Court is inclined to quash the D.V.C.No.10 of 2024 in respect
of the petitioners 5 & 6. Accordingly, D.V.C.No.10 of 2024 as against the
petitioners 5 & 6 is quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 12:58:27 pm )
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if this Court
is inclined to dispense with the appearance of the petitioners 1 to 4, this Court
may impose requisite conditions to see to it that the presence of the petitioners 1
to 4 at the times, during which the presence of the petitioners 1 to 4 is
mandatory be safeguarded so that the petitioners 1 to 4 does not frustrate the
trial proceedings by dragging on the same to the detriment of the respondent.
6.This Court, taking into consideration the submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, permits the petitioner 1 to 4 to raise all the
grounds as raised herein before the trial court at the time of trial. Taking into
consideration the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
appearance of the petitioners 1 to 4 before the trial court is dispensed with
except for their appearance for the purpose of receiving the copy of the
proceedings u/s 230 of BNSS, framing of charges, questioning under Section
351 of BNSS and on the day on which judgment is to be pronounced. However,
if for any particular reason, the presence of the petitioners 1 to 4 is necessary,
the trial court, at its wisdom, shall direct them to appear on those days.
7.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in respect of the
petitioners 5 & 6 and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed in respect of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 12:58:27 pm )
petitioners 1 to 4. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.07.2025
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
am
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Sattur.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 12:58:27 pm )
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
am
14.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2025 12:58:27 pm )
