Madras HC Says Magistrate Must Decide Husband’s Bid To Add 3 People He Accuses Of Adultery To Wife’s Domestic-Violence Case

The petitioner-wife filed D.V.C. No. 95 of 2022 under Section 12 read with Sections 17–22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking protection, residence and monetary reliefs

The respondent-husband filed Crl.M.P. No. 1498 of 2026 to implead three proposed respondents, alleging that they were necessary or proper parties because of their alleged relationship with the petitioner

The petitioner sought to have the impleadment application struck off under Article 227, contending that the proposed respondents were strangers to the domestic-violence proceedings.

Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are civil in nature, as held by the Full Bench in Arul Daniel v. Suganya, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 5435.

Section 28(2) of the Act empowers the court to lay down its own procedure for disposing of applications.

The High Court stated that, in exercising Article 227 jurisdiction over domestic-violence proceedings, it should determine whether the court below manifestly lacks jurisdiction; it should not decide in the first instance whether proposed parties are necessary or proper parties.

The court also noted that Order I Rule 10 CPC was invoked in the impleadment application and had been made applicable to the Magistrate by the Full Bench decision.

The question before the High Court was confined to whether the Magistrate could entertain and decide the impleadment application, not whether the proposed respondents should ultimately be joined.

Given the civil nature of the Act proceedings, the procedural power under Section 28(2), and the applicability of Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Magistrate had jurisdiction to determine the application.

Deciding the proposed parties’ status at the revision stage would intrude on the Magistrate’s jurisdiction; no basis was shown for finding a manifest lack of jurisdiction warranting Article 227 intervention.

It further directed that D.V.C. No. 95 of 2022 be disposed of within three months after deciding that application; no costs were ordered, and the connected C.M.P. was closed.