The court ruled that a trial court lacking territorial jurisdiction must return an application under the DV Act for filing in the appropriate court, emphasizing the Act's purpose to ensure justice.

JUDGEMENT

1. The petitioners through the medium of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have impugned the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budgam (hereinafter referred to as "the Appellate Court") whereby the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial court") dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter for short referred to as "the DV Act") on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction, has been upheld.

2. The orders dated 30.09.2023 passed by the Appellate Court and 20.05.2022 passed by the Trial court have been impugned by the petitioners on the ground that the learned Appellate Court has ignored the intent and object behind the DV Act and has without any need and justification subjected the evidence of the petitioners to hair-splitting analysis as if the learned Appellate Court was conducting a murder trial. It is stated that the learned Appellate Court has discussed the concepts of license and lease and also thoroughly analysed the title of landlord to the tenanted accommodation as if it was deciding the question of title of the property. It is also urged by the petitioners that their application could not have been dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as the lack of territorial jurisdiction does not go to the root of the matter and the learned trial court ought to have returned the application filed under the DV Act to the petitioners for filing the same before the appropriate court, assuming it had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the application filed by the petitioners.

3. The respondents have filed the response to the petition and have raised a preliminary objection that the present petition against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial court as well as by the Appellate Court, is not maintainable as the scope and ambit of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and the High Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot re-appreciate the evidence and upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two courts. The respondents have submitted in detail the factual aspects of the case, which may not be relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present controversy, however shall be extracted herein after, as and when required. The precise stand of the respondents in their objections is that both the orders impugned have been passed by the Trial court as well as by the Appellate Court well within the domain of law after due appreciation of evidence led by the parties in respect of territorial jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain and adjudicate the application filed by the petitioners under DV Act. The respondents in their response have mainly laid stress upon the conduct of the petitioner No.1 to demonstrate that the petitioner No. 1 had been abusing the process of law time and again, not only by filing the application under section 12 of the DV Act before the court which lacked the territorial jurisdiction but also the subsequent transfer application with ulterior motive.

Arguments:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned trial court while dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under DV Act has passed the order on assumptions and has expressed unnecessary doubt upon the rent agreement placed on record by the petitioners while returning a finding that the same is an outcome of an afterthought to plug the loopholes. He further vehemently argued that the learned Appellate Court while passing the order impugned has gone into the issue of determining the admissibility of the document and has gone to the extent of commenting upon the ownership of a landlord vis-a-vis the property rented out to the petitioner No. 1.