KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. By way of the present petition filed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 petitioners seeks quashing of complaint case bearing No. 156/1 titled as Gunjan Tondon v. Sh. Manish Tondon and Ors. filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. The brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present petition as set out by the petitioners are as under:

That the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 was solemnized with the respondent No. 2 on 23.01.2009 at the Community Centre in Sector-52, Noida (UP) according to Hindu rites and customs. All the petitioners are the permanent residents of the State of Uttar Pradesh. In fact, admittedly, the respondent No. 2 is also a permanent resident of Noida (UP) being Mahagun Manor, Flat No. 417, Plot No. F-30, Sector-50, Noida.

3. That the marriage of the petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 was an arranged marriage and the acquaintance between them came through a popular matrimonial website known as 'Jeevansathi.com'.

4. That after the aforesaid marriage, the respondent No. 2 joined the conjugal company of the petitioner No. 1 at her matrimonial home in Bareily (UP), at H.No. 17, Madaari Gate, Bada Bazaar. However on account of his employment with M/s. Malayalam Manorma, in Delhi, the petitioner No. 1 has been living in a rented accommodation in Ghaziabad at the aforesaid address.

5. That on 16.03.2009, the respondent No. 2 left her matrimonial home in Uttar Pradesh and started living with her relatives including parents, in Noida Flat No. 417, Plot No. 30, Noida.

6. That thereafter on 24.03.2009, loaded with patently frivolous, false and vexatious averments, despite being permanently residing in Noida, the respondent No. 2 in a most cunning and malicious manner, with the sole objective to cause undue harassment, hardships and mental torture to the petitioners, filed the impugned complaint in the court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi which was subsequently marked to Ms. Veena Rani, MM, Patiala House, New Delhi for trial in accordance with law. The said complaint is now posted on 02.07.2009 for further proceedings.

7. Feeling aggrieved with the said complaint filed by the respondent u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of the said complaint.

8. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the courts in Delhi have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the impugned complaint as the same has been filed by the respondent No. 2 in a court which lacks jurisdiction. He urged that none of the alleged acts of domestic violence qua respondent No. 2 took place in Delhi and as per the admission of the respondent No. 2 the marriage was solemnized at Noida, and her matrimonial home was either in Bareily or Ghaziabad. Respondent No. 2 even admitted having been staying at Noida after she left her matrimonial home on 16/3/2009 and reason placed for residing temporarily at Delhi is that, her acutely ill paralytic mothers condition may deteriorate upon seeing her daughter staying with her. The counsel averred that, after 16/3/2009 alleged domestic violence are not in continuance. The counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 2 is misusing and abusing the provision of Section 27 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act has been laid down for beneficial support of needy and destitute persons and certainly not for a person like respondent No. 2 who is a malafide litigant with all veracious claims and thus the proceedings pending before the trial court should be quashed. The counsel relied on decisions in following judgments in support of his contentions:

1. Surjit Singh Kalra Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, (1991) 2 SCC 87;

2. S.R. Batra v. Tarun Batra 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 56;

3. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. National Panasonic