(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.)

1. 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.

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.

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., 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.

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 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 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.