Heard Mr. Anand Parchure, teamed counsel for the petitioners; Mr D.B. Yengal, learned APP for respondent No.1 and Mr. N.S.Bhattad for respondent No.2.

2. Rule, returnable forthwith, With the consent of respective learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal

3. By means of this petition, the petitioners seek to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18.7.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akot arising from the order dated 15.2.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot. It appears that the teamed JMFC by order dated 15.2.2010 in respect of an application challenging the authority/jurisdiction of the Court to entertain Misc. Application No.155/2009 considered the application filed and the say from the other side, with reference to Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act of 2005”) and held that the learned JMFC has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the application of the aggrieved person under the Act of 2005. It is not disputed that the said application was decided without recording the statement of the parties with reference to documents which were relied upon by either of the parties. It is also not disputed that the aggrieved person Arti Harshad Bhutada had married Harshad Ramesh Bhutada on 11.7.2008 at Akola. After their marriage, they resided at Nasik. Father of the aggrieved person is carrying on business and is residing at Chembur (Mumbai). However, on the ground that the applicant is temporarily resident of Akot along with maternal brother of her father, it appears that the application challenging the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain, try and decide the application of the aggrieved person was rejected by order dated 15.2.2010 in Misc. Application No. 155/2009. The order was subject matter of challenge by means of an Appeal before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Akot who too dismissed the appeal confirming the finding by the learned trial Magistrate that the trial Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the proceedings under the Act of 2005 which came into being from 26.10.2006.

4. I have heard submissions at the Bar, at length. A cursory glance at the provisions of Section 27 of the Act of 2005 would reveal that the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class within whose local limits the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or employed; or the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or 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. Subsection (2) states that the order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India. The order passed under the Act of 2005 by the Magistrate is appealable in view of section 29 of the said Act.

5. In support of the petition, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is distinction between temporary residence and casual visit. The expression ‘reside’ implied something more than “stay” and implied some intention to remain at a place and not merely to pay it a casual visit. The question of residence is required to be decided as to whether the party claiming residence, permanent or temporary, has an intention to stay at a particular place then alone it could be said that the party is residing at that particular place, either permanently or even temporarily. The question as to whether aggrieved person has made a particular place an abode, permanent or temporary, is a question to be decided with reference to facts of each case. It is apprehended that if liberal construction is placed upon the provisions made under section 27 of the Act to allow even casual visit of the place to claim that the place is his or her temporary residence within the meaning of Section 27 of the Act 2005, then it may lead to abuse of the legal process as the aggrieved perso