S.B. Shukre, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.

2. This revision application questions the legality and correctness of the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2015, upsetting the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, FC, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3538 of 2014. The learned Magistrate has held that the Court at Nagpur has no jurisdiction to try the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the "D.V. Act").

3. Shri Wakode, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is patently illegal and perverse and whereas Shri Mohta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is perfectly legal and proper. Shri Mohta submits that in any case, the learned Magistrate could not have dismissed the petition on the preliminary objection, without giving any opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. In support, he places his reliance upon the cases of Vijay Sudhakar Patil v. Asha Vijay Patil reported in 2015 (1) Mh. L. J. 431; Ramesh a/o Mohanlal Bhgutada, Advocate & anr v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011 (6) Mh. L. J. 167 and Vikas Rastogee v. State of U. P. & anr reported in II (2014) DMC 470 (All).

4. The learned Magistrate while allowing the application vide order dated 28.10.2015 has given elaborate reasons to support the finding about the non-maintainability of the petition under the D.V. Act while holding that he had no territorial jurisdiction to try the petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the admissions given by the non-applicant No. 1 in her application filed under Section 125 Cr. P. C. (Criminal Application No. 62 of 2014) before the Court at Saunsar, the admissions given by the non-applicant No. 1 in the First Information Report lodged by her against the applicants on 8.12.2014 at Police Station, Saunsar and the other facts which are matter of record and not in dispute. These facts show that non-applicant No. 1 has admitted just about one month before filing of the application on 20.10.2014 and also two months thereafter that she has been residing at her parental place at Saunsar since August 2014.

5. Learned Magistrate has also noted the fact that although non-applicant No. 1 showed her address in Section 12 of the D.V. Act petition as c/o Shri Satyanarayan Champalal Taori, near Hotel Harmony, Gandhibag, Nagpur, she did not file even an affidavit of Satyanarayan Taori to show that she is a temporary resident of Nagpur. In the application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, there is only a passing reference made by the respondent that she along with her children has been residing presently at Nagpur in the house of her brother on the address mentioned in the cause title. This application has been filed on 20.10.2014. But, just a month before, she filed application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. before the Saunsar Court wherein she asserted that she was residing at Saunsar since August 2014. Even in the First Information Report that was lodged by her on 8.12.2014, about one and half months after Section 12 D.V. Act application at Police Station, Saunsar, the non-applicant No. 1 stated that she has been residing at Saunsar. Not only this, but in her evidence recorded in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr. P. C. before the Saunsar Court subsequent to the filing of the present application also, the non-applicant No. 1 admitted that she was residing at Saunsar. In the backdrop of these admissions, it was necessary for the non-applicant No. 1 to have clarified as to when did she leave Saunsar and come to Nagpur for residing at Nagpur temporarily. She also needed to have stated the relevant dates in this regard. If some of the admissions pertained to a period which was after filing of this application, an affidavit of brother