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 offences committed outside India were not applicable.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties.

3. In this criminal writ petition, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 01.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-13, Nagpur whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.V. Act’) challenging the order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. The respondent has filed an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and prayed for reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the D.V. Act. The petitioners are the non-applicants in the said application. In the said application the respondent has narrated the facts leading to the filing of the proceeding under the D.V. Act.

4. In short, it is the case of the respondent that after marriage for few days she was treated properly. After few months of the marriage the petitioner No. 1 started doubting her character. The petitioner No. 2, who is mother-in-law of the respondent, joined them at the place of the service of the petitioner No. 1 initially at Hyderabad and later on at Bengaluru. The petitioners, according to the respondent, took custody of her stridhan. They refused to handover the same to her. The petitioners, according to respondent, ill-treated and tortured her. She was subjected to mental pain and agony. The marriage between respondent and petitioner No. 1 took place on 28.02.2008. In the year 2014, the petitioner No. 1 got a job in USA. Petitioner No. 1 took the respondent and his mother petitioner No. 2 to USA. In USA, the respondent was subjected to mental torture and cruelty. At the time of birth of the daughter, respondent came to Nagpur. After birth of daughter the petitioners did not bother to take care of respondent and the daughter. When the ill-treatment and torture became unbearable on 24.02.2018 the respondent left USA and came to Nagpur. She has been residing with her parents. It is stated that the petitioners have not provided her maintenance, separate residence and other reliefs. They have also refused to return back her stridhan. In short, it is the case of the respondent that she was subjected to domestic violence.

5. The petitioners appeared before the Magistrate. They filed two applications Exhs.14 and 15. By these two applications they challenge the maintainability of the application and the jurisdiction of the Court of Magistrate to entertain the application. According to them, the application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, filed by the respondent, after one year from coming to Nagpur from USA, is not maintainable inasmuch as the respondent was not subjected to any domestic violence during this period of one year. The petitioners further contended that the alleged domestic violence was caused to the respondent in USA and therefore, the application filed by the respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nagpur (India) is not maintainable. The Court of Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application.

6. Learned Magistrate by order dated 23.03.2022 rejected both these applications. Petitioners filed the appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act against this order. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. The petitioners are therefore before this Court.

7. I have heard Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. H.R. Gadhia, learned Advocate for the respondent. Perused the record and proceedings.

8. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that in view of the fact that the alleged domestic violence was caused in USA and the application was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nagpur (India), the provisions of Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) would becom