Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
KISHORE C. SANT, J.
Vikram S/o Devidas Rathod – Appellant
Versus
Vrushali w/o Vikram Rathod – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1071 of 2022
Decided on : 05-06-2023
JURISDICTION - Domestic Violence Act - Section 27 - [Section 27 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005] - The court discussed the jurisdiction under Section 27 of the D.V. Act and its applicability to the facts of the case. The court highlighted the importance of the permanent or temporary residence of the aggrieved person and the respondent in determining jurisdiction. The court also emphasized the timing of objections to jurisdiction and the purpose of filing the application under the D.V. Act. The judgment cited by the respondent was found applicable to the present case, while the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were deemed inapplicable as they pertained to cases under Section 498-A of the IPC, which has different jurisdictional provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a husband, challenged an order rejecting his objection about the jurisdiction of the Court and filing a complaint under Section 193 against his wife in a Domestic Violence Act proceeding. The petitioner argued that the Court at Chalisgaon lacked jurisdiction as neither party resided there and the cause of action did not arise in Chalisgaon.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the jurisdiction under Section 27 of the D.V. Act was applicable to the case and emphasized the importance of the permanent or temporary residence of the parties in determining jurisdiction. The Court also noted the timing of objections to jurisdiction and the purpose of filing the application under the D.V. Act. The Court concluded that the learned trial Judge had rightly passed the order and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the Court at Chalisgaon in a Domestic Violence Act proceeding, based on the residence of the parties and the cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established was the application of Section 27 of the D.V. Act in determining jurisdiction, focusing on the permanent or temporary residence of the parties. The Court also emphasized the timing of objections to jurisdiction and the purpose of filing the application under the D.V. Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The interim relief was continued for four weeks from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule.
2. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.
3. This petition is by husband aggrieved by an order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon in an application below Exhibit-36 in P.W.D.V.A. No.108/2017, thereby rejecting the application, raising objection about the jurisdiction to the Court and filing complaint under Section 193 against respondent no.1/wife.
4. The facts in short are that the petitioner and respondent no.1 got married on 15.05.2014 at Chalisgaon. After marriage, for a brief period, the couple resided at Aurangabad thereafter resided at Ulhas Nagar, District Thane at Mumbai for service. The couple also is blessed with a child/respondent no.2.
5. Wife filed a complaint on 27.03.2017 with Ulhas Nagar Police Station making various allegations of cruelty, harassment etc. against her husband and her in-laws. Thereafter she filed proceeding under Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act for short) in the Court of Chalisgaon on 24.05.2017. The petitioner appeared before the Court at Chalisgaon and raised maintainability of the proceeding before the Court stating that in view of Section 27 of the D.V. Act, since the wife and in-laws, no one residing at Chalisgaon, the Court at Chalisgaon has no territorial jurisdiction. It is also prayed to file complaint under Section 193 against respondent no.1 for making false statement in the proceeding.
. The learned Court at Chalisgaon rejected the said application on the count that the marriage has admittedly taken place at Chalisgaon. The permanent address of the wife is at Chalisgaon. The wife has already filed affidavit of evidence at Exhibit-27 and there is strong prima-facie evidence on record to show her permanent address of Chalisgaon and therefore the said Court has jurisdiction.
6. It is the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner by pointing out Section 27 of the D.V. Act, which is reproduced below:
“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 this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.”
. She submits that in this case admittedly all the alleged instances have taken -place either at Aurangabad or at Ulhas Nagar, where the parties resided after marriage. From the averment in the application itself, it is clear that even presently the wife herself is staying at Mumbai for her job and in such circumstances, when no cause of action has arisen Chalisgaon and when no one is residing at Chalisgaon, the Court at Chalisgaon will not get jurisdiction to entertain proceeding under the D.V. Act.
7. She relied upon the judgment in the case of Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare Vs. Mangala w/o Pratap Bansar, reported in 2018(3) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) (F.B.) 171. She submits that this Court has power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for redressal of grievances of party arising from orders passed in proceedings under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. She further pointed out from paragraph no.41 of the said judgment that the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. There is no dispute about the said preposition.
. The next judgment she relied upon is in the case of Arul Daniel and Others Vs. Suganya, reported in 2023 Cri. L.J. 339 in support of the submission that the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act can be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. About t
The key legal principle established in the judgment is the application of Section 27 of the D.V. Act in determining jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of the permanent or temporary residence of....
Territorial Jurisdiction of Magistrate – It is requirement of Section 27 of D.V. Act that, in order to confer territorial jurisdiction upon a Judicial Magistrate First Class, there has to be at least....
Temporary residence under the D.V. Act requires demonstrable intention to stay, not just casual presence, supported by sufficient evidence.
The court's jurisdiction to entertain and try a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is based on the residence of the parties at the time of presentation of the petition.
The proceedings initiated under the D.V. Act are of a civil nature and not criminal, and therefore, the provisions of Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. regarding sanction for inquiry into or trial of offenc....
(1) Inherent Jurisdiction – To secure ends of justice is much more than to decide case on legal points.(2) Domestic violence – Petition under DV Act can be filed in a court where person aggrieved per....
The jurisdiction in domestic violence cases should prioritize the victim's temporary residence as per the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, ensuring timely and effective relief.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
