( 1 ) IN this Revision filed under S. 397 read with S. 401 Cr. P. C. the revision petitioners who are the counter petitioners in C. M. P. No. 2066 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram, challenge the orders passed concurrently by the courts below overruling the petitioners' preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to try (decide) the case. The interesting questions for judicial resolution are: -

i) Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate could be said to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class within the meaning of S. 27 of the Protection of Women from domestic Violence Act, 2005 ? ii) When, once the local jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Judicial magistrate of the first class has been defined by recourse to S. 14 Cr. P. C. , is it permissible for any of those Magistrates to exercise judicial powers of inquiry or trial in respect of a cause of action occurring outside such local jurisdiction ?

( 2 ) C. M. P. No. 2066 of 2008 was an application filed by one Sindhu, the first respondent herein under S. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") claiming reliefs under Ss. 18,19,20,22 and 23 of the Act. The revision petitioners were shown as the counter-petitioners to the said application. The first revision petitioner (V. Anilkumar) is the husband of the said Sindhu and the revision petitioners 2 and 3 are his relatives.

( 3 ) AFTER entering appearance, the revision petitioners raised an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the case. As per Order dated, 10. 09. 2008, the learned Magistrate overruled the said objection and held that he has the jurisdiction to try the case. Eventhough the revision petitioners preferred an appeal under S. 29 of the Act before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned sessions Judge as per judgment dated 2. 1. 2009 dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hence, this Revision.

( 4 ) I heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the view taken by the courts below is perfectly legal and does not call for interference at the hands of this court.

( 6 ) I am afraid that I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the courts below. In a non-Metropolitan area, the Forum which is competent to grant protection orders and other orders under the Act as also the Forum to try the offences under the act, is, by virtue of S. 27 of the Act, the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class (JMFC) within whose territorial limits, any of the jurisdictional facts envisaged by S. 27 of the Act, are present. S. 27 of the Act reads as follows:-

"27. Jurisdiction.-- (1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which - (a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or (b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or (c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act. (2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India".

IS CJM A JMFC ?

( 7 ) I will now dispose of a preliminary argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to him, the Chief Judicial Magistrate ("cjm" for short) is not a Judicial Magistrate of the first class (JMFC) within the meaning of S. 27 of the Act, and therefore the CJM is not competent to pass orders under the Act. The following is the submissions made in this regard on behalf of the revision petitioners:-S. 2 (i) of the Act defines the word

Click Here to Read the rest of this document