The temporary residence of the parties can confer jurisdiction upon the court to hear a case, as per the relevant legal provisions and judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

In Criminal Transfer Petition No. 14/2021:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners harped that the permanent residence of the respondents is at Balotra, and therefore, the case could have been preferred there only.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission.

4. Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, 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 this Act shall be enforceable throughout India."

5. This Court, on reading of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, finds that the legislature has consciously used, for the jurisdiction in regard to filing of such a case, the words, "the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed".

6. The language of the statute is crystal clear, that even though the respondents were admittedly permanently residing at Balotra, District Barmer, but since the respondents are now temporarily residing at Bhinmal, District Jalore, the jurisdiction of the Bhinmal Court cannot be challenged.

7. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

In Criminal Transfer Petition No. 13/2021:

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners harped that the permanent residence of the respondents is at Balotra, and therefore, the case could have been preferred there only.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission.

10. This Court, on reading of Section 126(1) of Cr.P.C., finds that the legislature has consciously used for the jurisdiction in regard to filing of a case, the words, "Proceedings under Section 125 may be taken against any person in any district- (b) where he or his wife resides..".

11. The petitioner seeks to transfer the case from Bhinmal, District Jalore to Balotra, District Barmer or Jodhpur on the ground that the Bhinmal court does not have jurisdiction to try the case.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are not permanent residents of Bhinmal, District Jalore, and therefore, the case filed in the Bhinmal court is not maintainable.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents are temporarily residing in Bhinmal, District Jalore, and therefore, the Bhinmal Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of this Court towards the judgments rendered in Jagir Kaur & Ors. v. Jaswant Singh reported in AIR 1963 SC 1521; Mohd. Rasool v. Rabbo & Anr. reported in AIR 1955 All 693; and Charan Das v. Surasti Bai reported AIR 1940 Lah 449.

15. In the case of Jagir Kaur (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the term "resides" as under Section 126 Cr.P.C. would include both, a permanent as well as a temporary residence. And that only such an interpretation would satisfy the purpose of the said provision of law in the Statute.

16. In the case of Mohd. Rasool (supra), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, when analyzing whether temporary residence was sufficient for acquiring jurisdiction in a case of maintenance between husband and wife, under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., 1898, held that a temporary residence would suffice, and confer jurisdiction upon the court.

17. In the case of Charan Das (supra), the Hon'ble Lahore High Court held that although a casual visit t