ORDER :

1. The challenge in this petition is to the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'Act of 2005').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the wife filed an application before the JMFC, Korba under the Act of 2005, however she never resided at Korba. He further submits that she was married to Petitioner No. 1 and only stayed for 10-15 days at Durg (her maternal house). He further refers to two orders passed during the pendency of this petition and the complaint made by the wife under section 498A of IPC, which was decided and the trial was completed on 02.03.2021, wherein all the petitioners herein were acquitted with a specific finding that no cruelty was proved under Section 498A of the IPC. He further submits that appeal having been filed against such acquittal the Sessions Court of Durg by order dated 22.10.2021 has dismissed the appeal. He further refers to certain findings recorded by the Sessions court and would submit that the wife only resided for 8 to 10 days at Durg, thereafter, she started residing at Katghora wherein she was working. Therefore, this finding would go to dislodge the claim filed under Act of 2005. He further referred to the judgment and the ground of appeal and would submit that the cause of action at Korba never arose.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent refers to the application filed under section 12 (1) of the Act of 2005 and the attention of the Court was invited to Para 3, wherein allegations were attributed in respect to petitioner No. 1 which was further extended to petitioners No. 1 to 3. It is stated that since the wife was assaulted and she was forced to stay at her paternal home as she was thrown away from the matrimonial house. He further refers to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in AIR 2019 SCC 1790 and in case of Ruhi Vs. Annes Ahmad and Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2020) decided on 06.01.2020.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. The primary ground which has been urged before this Court is on the point of jurisdiction, that cause of action at JMFC Korba did not arose, as the wife matrimonial house was at Durg.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Rupali Devi (supra) has observed that the provisions contained in Section 498 A of IPC undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. It further observed that even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. It further observed that her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The supreme Court at para 13 to 16 has observed. For the sake of brevity para 15 is reproduced herein under :-

"The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, as the object behind its enactment would indicate, is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The definition of the Domestic Violence in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or wellbeing, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The said definition would certainly, for reasons stated above, have a close connection with Explanation A & B to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code which defines cruelty. The provisions contained in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the