Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 42

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
Nikhil Rajendra More – Appellant
Versus
Vishakha Nikhil More – Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 816 of 2025, Criminal Application No. 3824 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : R.S. Deshmukkh, Nilanjam Pande, Rahul Joshi, Wakale Raviraj Tukaram
For the Respondent: S.B. Solanke

Temporary residence under the D.V. Act requires demonstrable intention to stay, not just casual presence, supported by sufficient evidence.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 27 - Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Respondent claimed temporary residence at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for education purposes - Petitioners contended against jurisdiction based on respondent's previous addresses and lack of evidence - Court emphasized the requirement of a clear intention to reside temporarily - Respondent failed to provide necessary evidence of residence - Orders by lower courts quashed. (Paras 17, 32, 54)

Facts of the case:
The respondent filed applications for protection under the D.V. Act alleging domestic abuse, claiming residence at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for educational purposes, despite her previous addresses indicating otherwise. (Paras 3, 12)

Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the respondent did not prove her temporary residence at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and that both lower courts failed to adequately assess the jurisdictional claim. (Paras 54, 52)

Issues: Whether the respondent could be considered as temporarily residing at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and whether the courts below had jurisdiction based on the respondent's claims of residence. (Paras 13)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the concept of temporary residence requires a definitive intention to stay at a location, not merely a sporadic presence; the failure to provide proof of educational enrollment undermined her claim. (Paras 32, 20)

Result: Petition allowed; orders set aside, but the respondent may file a new application if proper jurisdiction is established.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction of magistrate under d.v. act. (Para 2 , 3 , 5)
2. arguments against the respondent's claim. (Para 6 , 10 , 12)
3. definition and interpretation of 'resides' in d.v. act. (Para 19 , 21 , 34)
4. temporary residence defined for legal context. (Para 27 , 32 , 52)
5. final ruling on jurisdiction of the courts. (Para 54 , 55)

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally, with the consent of the respective parties, at the admission stage.

2. The petitioners assail the judgment and order dated 07^th May, 2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (for short “learned Additional Sessions Judge”) in PWDVA Appeal No. 30 of 2025, whereby dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 28^th January, 2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (for short “learned Magistrate”) in PWDVA No. 85 of 2024, below Exh.6, whereby rejected the application filed by the petitioners, raising an objection that the learned Magistrate at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the application under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘D.V. Act’) and held that the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the application.

Factual Matrix:-

3. On 29^th November, 2022, Petitioner No.1 married the respondent. Until December 2022, the respondent resided with Petitioner No. 1 at her matrimonial house in Latur. On 27^th March, 2023, she filed a complaint with the Women Grievance Redressal Cell, Latur, against the petitioners for ill- treating her. Then, on 13^th April, 2023, she lodged an F.I.R. at the MIDC Police Station, Latur, against the petitioners. Thereafter, on 20^th February, 2024, she filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, contending that she is temporarily residing at the house of her cousin-uncle at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for further education; therefore, the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to try, entertain, and decide the application.

4. Pursuant to the summons, the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and filed an application contending that the respondent has not filed any document to show that she is residing within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. She has deliberately omitted to state in the complaint that the education she is pursuing and the times and places at which she took admission, thereby suppressing this information. She has not produced any document before the Court to show that she is pursuing education. Therefore, it was contended that the respondent does not reside within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. Thus, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the application. Hence, they urged that the respondent's application be dismissed on the ground that the learned Magistrate lacks jurisdiction.

5. After considering the material on record, the learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the petitioners, holding that, as per Section 27 of the D.V. Act, the Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the application as the respondent is temporarily residing at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred the appeal, PWDVA Appeal No. 30 of 2025, before the learned Sessions Court, which, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, holding that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper and therefore, the application filed by the respondent is tenable before the learned Magistrate. Hence, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

6. Mr. Deshmukkh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge have not taken into consideration that the marriage of Petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 29^th November, 2022, at