The jurisdiction of the Magistrate under the D.V. Act is determined by the residence of the aggrieved person, which must be established at trial, and proceedings are not strictly criminal, allowing for revocation or dropping of cases.

JUDGMENT :

1) The petitioners have challenged the application filed by the respondents against them under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the D.V.Act”) which is stated to be pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge), Kupwara.

2) As per case of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 had entered into wedlock with respondent No.1 on 12.05.2022 and out of the said wedlock respondent No.2 was born. It has been submitted that after the marriage, respondent No.1 started living with the petitioner in his house at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar alongwith other family members i.e petitioners No.2 to 4. According to the petitioners the attitude and behavior of respondent No.1 from the very inception of marriage was rude and obnoxious. It has been submitted that respondent No.1 started coercing the petitioner No.1 to leave his old aged parents, which was resisted by him and as a consequence thereof the matrimonial relationship between them turned sour. It has been further submitted that respondent No.1 would always harass and taunt the parents of petitioner No.1 and due to acrimonious relationship between the parties, respondent No.1 left the company of petitioner No.1 and went back to her parental home. It has been alleged by petitioner No.1 that respondent No.1started meeting her ex-husband despite his expression of strong disapproval to it. It has been submitted that prior to filing of the impugned petition, on 13.02.2023, when petitioner No.1 went to see his child in the hospital, the relatives of respondent No.1, including her father, assaulted him and snatched his mobile phone and Rs.80,000/-, which resulted in filing of FIR No.17 of 2023, a copy whereof has been placed on record.

3) It has been contended by the petitioners that the impugned petition has been filed by respondent No.1 at Kupwara with a view to harass them, as respondent No.1 is neither permanently nor temporarily residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Kupwara. It has been contended that there are vague allegations leveled in the impugned petition without any specific details and, as such, it was not open to the learned trial Magistrate to issue process against the petitioners. Hence the present petition.

4) The respondents have filed their reply to the petition in which they have contended that petitioner No.1 has always been harassing respondent No.1 as well as her three months old baby, inasmuch as, they have been left to fend for themselves. It has been contended that petitioner No.1 has been using filthy language against respondent No.1, which compelled her to file a report with the Police, resulting in registration of an FIR for offences under Section 498 A of IPC.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6) The main ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioners for impugning the application filed by the respondents against the petitioners is that there are no specific allegations in the impugned petition against the petitioners. The other ground that has been urged by the petitioners is that respondent No.1 has never resided within the territorial jurisdiction of learned trial Magistrate, as such, it was not open to her to file the impugned petition before the said Magistrate.

7) If we have a look at the impugned petition filed by the respondents against the petitioners, in the title of the said petition present address of the respondents has been shown as Khumriyal Kupwara. The petitioners have disputed this fact by stating that respondent No.1 has never resided at the aforesaid address and is not even residing there at present. On this ground it has been urged by the petitioners that the learned trial Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to entertain the impugned petition.

8) Clause (a) of Sub Section (1) of Section 27 of the D.V.Act provides that the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, within the local limits of wh