Shruthi Thilak vs Prabhu Tilak
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRP.No.3057 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On:
Delivered on:
11-11-2026
13-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
C ivil R evision P etition No.3057 of 2026
CMP.N & o .13049 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011133052026}
Shruthi Thilak
W/o Prabhu Thilak,
No.27-A-3,
Sai Krishna Apartments,
3rd Cross, Brindavan Road,
Fairlands, Salem-636 016.
...Petitioner
Vs
1. Prabhu Thilak
S/o G.Thilakavathi,
Residing at TAISHA
Housing Complex,
A3/01, Natesan Nagar,
2nd Main Road
Virugambakkam,
Chennai 600092
2. G.Thilagavathy
Residing at TAISHA
Housing Complex,
A3/01, Natesan Nagar,
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:19 pm )
CRP.No.3057 of 2026
2nd Main Road
Virugambakkam,
Chennai 600092.
...Respondents
PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India praying
to strike off the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.1498 of 2026 in
rd
DVC.No.95 of 2022 pending before the 23 Metropolitan Magistrate
Court at Saidapet, Chennai as abuse of legal process.
For Petitioners: Ms.S.P.Arthi
For Respondents: Ms.P.Kritika Kamal
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
rd
23 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
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:19 pm )
CRP.No.3057 of 2026
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
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:19 pm )
CRP.No.3057 of 2026
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
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:19 pm )
CRP.No.3057 of 2026
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
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:19 pm )
CRP.No.3057 of 2026
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
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:19 pm )
CRP.No.3057 of 2026
Constitution of India.
16. In the result, the above civil revision petition is disposed of
rd
with a direction to the 23 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,
rd
there shall be a direction to the 23 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
rd
The 23 Metropolitan Magistrate
Court at Saidapet, Chennai
RS
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:19 pm )
CRP.No.3057 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J
RS
CRP.No.3057 of 2026&
CMP.No.13049 of 2026
13-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 03:40:19 pm )