1. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing/ setting aside the order and judgment dated 3rd November 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner against an order passed by learned Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, "the Act").

2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the court of Magistrate and before the court of learned ASJ was that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in Lucknow on 22nd February 2004. Before marriage, the complainant/ respondent was living in Lucknow at her parental house and was doing Ph.D. research work in Lucknow under supervision of Mr. R.C. Tripathi. After marriage, the respondent/wife remained at Lucknow, occasionally, she went to Shillong where petitioner i.e. husband of the complainant wife/ was posted. The incident of domestic violence, if any, had taken place in Lucknow and nothing happened at Delhi. However, the complaint against the petitioner was lodged at Delhi. He submitted that the complainant/ wife had given address of 175, Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi, a house where brother-in-law of complainant/ wife namely Mr. Rajesh Ojha was residing. The Court at Delhi would have no jurisdiction.

3. The facts regarding place of marriage and residence are not in dispute. The learned Sessions Judge relying on Bhagwan Das and another v Kamal Abrol and others (2005) 11 SCC 66 observed that since the temporary residence being one of the incident of jurisdiction the controversy whether the residence of the wife at Delhi was a temporary residence or not, can be decided only after the evidence. He also observed that the Domestic Violence Act being a new Act, there was lack of judgments given by the superior courts on the issue and the issue would be clarified only when some decisions of superior courts come on this point. He observed that if the wife was able to prove that her temporary residence was in Delhi with her sister within the meaning of Section 27 of the Act, the trial court would have jurisdiction to decide the matter. However, this fact can be decided only on the basis of evidence, he left the question open.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the residence of the wife with her sister at Delhi cannot give jurisdiction to the Court at Delhi when none of the incidents of domestic violence had taken place at Delhi nor the marriage took place in Delhi nor the wife ever, before filing the petition lived at Delhi nor the parents of the wife were living in Delhi nor the parties lived together at Delhi. It is submitted that this Court should clarify the position.

5. Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, which is about jurisdiction reads as under:

"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 under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India."

6. Every statute has to be interpreted keeping in mind the purpose for which it has been enacted and the interpretation must be such so as to advance the purpose of the act and should not be such as to defeat the intention of the legislature.

7. Under Domestic Violence Act, a complaint can be made by an aggrieved person or any other person (section 4) against the respondent and prayer can be made for obtaining various interim orders and reliefs as given in various provisions of the A