The DV Act applies to foreign citizens for acts of domestic violence occurring in India, and a domestic relationship exists if parties lived together at any time, regardless of subsequent divorce.

JUDGMENT :

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of parties and taken up for final hearing. The Respondent No 1 appears in person. Vide order dated 14th December 2023, this Court had appointed Advocate Ashutosh Kulkarni as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Cr.P.C ) has been invoked by the revision applicant challenging the final judgment and order dated 14th July 2023 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 94 of 2023 arising out of the final judgment and order dated 6th January 2023 passed by the metropolitan magistrate in Case No.172/DV of 2027. By the judgment dated 14th July 2023 the Sessions Court has dismissed the appeal declining to interfere with the judgment of the metropolitan magistrate passed in the application filed under section 12 of the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 [for short “the DV Act”].

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. The Applicant and the Respondent no.1 are the citizens of USA. The applicant is currently residing in USA whereas respondent no.1 is currently residing in Mumbai. The marriage of the parties was solemnized on 3rd January 1994 in Mumbai and subsequently the marriage ceremony was also performed in USA on 25th November 1994. In the year 2005-2006 the Applicant and Respondent no.1 came back to India and started residing at Meru Heights, Matunga which property stood in the joint names of parties. After coming back to India, the Respondent no.1 started working with “Capgemini” company at Vikhroli and is employed till date. In the month of May 2008 Respondent no.1 left the matrimonial house at Meru Heights Matunga and started residing with her mother where she is still residing. In the year 2014-15 the Applicant moved back to USA. In the year 2017, the Applicant filed proceedings seeking Divorce in the USA Court and the summons was received by the Respondent No 1 on 15th May, 2017. On 7th July 2017 an application under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act was filed by the Respondent No 1 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla being Application No. 175/DV of 2017. On 3rd January, 2018 the USA Court granted Decree of Divorce dissolving the marriage between the Applicant and Respondent No 1.

4. On 17th October 2018 the interim application of respondent no.1 under section 23 of the DV Act seeking interim relief of maintenance, possession of flat at Meru Heights, restraining orders against the transfer of flat and alternate accommodation and compensation came to be rejected by the Metropolitan magistrate.

PLEADINGS IN THE D.V. APPLICATION:

5. The case of the Respondent No.1 is that the parties were married on 3rd January 1994 and during their honeymoon in Nepal the applicant abused the Respondent no.1 by calling her as second hand as her earlier engagement had broken. On 4th February 1994 the applicant and respondent no.1 went to USA where respondent no.1 was subject to physical and emotional abuse. The applicant cast aspersions on the character of respondent no.1 and levelled allegations of having illicit relationship with other men even with her own brothers. The applicant used to assault respondent no.1 and not let her sleep at night till she confessed to having illicit and adulterous relationship. In November 1999 the applicant picked up a violent fight and assaulted respondent no.1 on her face and hearing the noise, neighbours called the local police and the applicant came to be arrested for domestic violence. The respondent no.1 did not complain to the police however the police noticed scar on her face and suo moto took cognizance of the acts of the Applicant and arrested the applicant who was thereafter released on bail by respondent’s brother. The Court in Texas granted conditional dismissal with condition to undergo batterer’s intervention counselling. In July 2000 when the parents of responden