[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K.G.Jamuna vs S.Naazia on 12 January, 2026
CRP.No.62 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 07.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON :12.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
CRP.No.62 of 2026
and CMP.No.185 of 2026
K.G.Jamuna
... Petitioner
Vs.
S.Naazia
...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the complaint filed by the respondent in
DVC.No.121 of 2025, pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court,
Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioner :Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthy
for M/s.S.Sidhartha Vishnu
ORDER
The Civil Revision petition is filed seeking to strike off the complaint
preferred by the respondent against the petitioner under the provisions of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:32:41 pm )
2. The petitioner herein is the mother-in-law of the respondent. The
respondent filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, seeking prohibitory orders against the petitioner and her
son from committing act of domestic Violence against the respondent. She
also sought for residential order, return of articles and compensation.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner were very vague
and based on the omnibus allegation made by the respondent against the
petitioner, the Magistrate ought not to have issued process to the petitioner.
4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in the complaint preferred
by the respondent, no specific overt act has been mentioned against the
petitioner and hence, in the absence of any domestic violence, the complaint
preferred by the respondent against the petitioner is not at all maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:32:41 pm )
5. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in K.P.Natarajan and another Vs. Muthalammal
and others reported in (2021) 15 SCC 817 and unreported judgment of this
Court in Prasad Gangaraju and others Vs. Swetharaj in CRP.No.1557 of
2024.
6. 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 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 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.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:32:41 pm )
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 under Section 12 of the
D.V. Act, at the threshold before this Court under Article 227
of the Constitution.”
7. When the law settled by the Full Bench of this Court is pointed out
to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that availability of
alternative remedy before the learned Magistrate will not take away the
supervisory power of this Court and hence the revision can very well be
entertained. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in K.P.Natarajan case, cited supra.
8. A close perusal of K.P.Natarajan case, cited supra would indicate
that in the said case, the Apex Court decided the correctness of the order
passed by the High Court in setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in a suit
by invoking supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
while considering the revision petition filed against the dismissal of petition to
condone the delay of 862 days in seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:32:41 pm )
9. An argument was made before the Apex Court that the revision was
filed only against the dismissal of the condone delay petition and hence instead
of deciding the sufficiency of the cause shown for condoning the delay, this
Court ought not have travelled beyond the scope of the revision and set aside
the ex-parte decree by exercising supervisory power. While answering the said
contention, the Apex Court said that the suit was filed against the minor and
the minor was not properly represented by guardian in the said case. The Apex
Court further held that the ex-parte decree passed against the minor defendant
should be treated as a nullity. When ex-parte decree is shown to be a nullity on
the face of it, the High Court was justified in exercising the power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, when the very decree itself
is held to be a nullity due to the failure of the trial Court to appoint a guardian
to represent the minor defendant, the Apex Court held that this Court can very
well exercise the power to set aside the ex-parte decree. It is pertinent to
mention, if a decree is held to be a nullity, the High Court will not have any
force and setting aside the ex-parte decree is only clarificatory in nature. A
decree which is a nullity shall not be allowed to continue, therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:32:41 pm )
Supreme Court held that there was no error of jurisdiction in invoking Article
227 of the Constitution of India. However, the decision in K.P.Natarajan
case cannot be cited for the proposition in every case that this Court shall
exercise its supervisory power, even if effective remedy is available before the
regular courts.
10. In the case on hand, as held by the full Bench of this Court in Arul
Daniel case, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the process by the
Magistrate, he can very well appear before the Magistrate and raise
preliminary issues like absence of Domestic Violence/Shared household etc.
If the Magistrate passes an order against the petitioner, the said order can very
well be challenged before the jurisdictional Sessions Judge under Section 29 of
Domestic Violence Act by way of regular appeal. Therefore, the petitioner has
got effective remedy before the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge, as per
law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the above mentioned case.
11. In Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai Vs
Tuticorin Educational Society reported in MANU/SC/1365/2019, the Apex
Court categorically held that availability of alternative remedy before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:32:41 pm )
regular Courts, is near total bar for exercise of supervisory power under Article
227 of Constitution of India. When the petitioner has a remedy of raising
preliminary objection before the Magistrate and also further appeal before the
Jurisdictional Sessions Court, I am not inclined to exercise the supervisory
power as held by Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai
case cited supra.
12. In view of the reasons stated above, the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is repelled and Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
12.01.2026
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ub
To
The Additional Mahila Court, Egmore, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:32:41 pm )
S.SOUNTHAR , J.
ub
Pre-delivery order made in
12.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:32:41 pm )
