The Domestic Violence Act allows for multiple complaints regarding recurring issues, and jurisdiction is determined by the location of the property related to the complaint.

ORDER :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the records in D.V.C. No.20 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvottiyur and to strike off the same.

2. The respondent along with her two children had filed D.V.C. No.34 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi and the same was partly allowed and thereby the petitioner herein was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each (total Rs.15,000/-) along with the children’s school fees. Further, as far as the relief under Sections 18 (Protection Order), 19 (Residential Order) and 22 (Compensation) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is concerned, the case was dismissed. Relevant extract of the Order dated 25.01.2019 of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi reads thus:

“The respondent further stated that since the first petitioner looking after the lands at Kurukattur village, the petitioner is not entitled for residential order. Further with respect to residential order at Chennai property, admittedly case pending before appellate court for cancellation of settlement deed by first respondent. Hence this court felt that there is no necessity for residential order for Chennai address.

Further in the main petition, no where by the averments for threatening by respondents to any manner has been stated the petitioner, further this court felt that as per the reply notice dated '12.11.2012, Ex.P.16 nothing stated about the Jewels of 36 1/2 sovereign and stated in that reply notice page 4 that petitioner owned only 7 sovereign of gold.

Further based on the facts and circumstances of the case as per section 22 of DV Acts this court is not inclined to grant lump sums compensation to the petitioners.

In the result this petition is partly allowed and the first respondent is directed to pay Rs.5000 each to the petitioners 1 to 3 every month within 10th of every English calender month from the date of petition and also to pay yearly school fees as claimed in this school and in respect of other relief u/s.18,19,22 are dismissed. The relief against R2 to R5 are dismissed.”

3. Thereafter, the respondent filed D.V.C. No.20 of 2022 before learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvottiyur, seeking Order under Sections 18, 19 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Questioning the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the husband.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent along with her two children filed D.V.C. No.34 of 2017 before learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi, against the petitioner and four others, and the same was partly allowed, and thereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance amount as well as school fees. In that case, protection order in respect of Thiruvottiyur property, Residential Order as well as Compensation were specifically denied by the Court, namely learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thoothukudi. If the respondent was aggrieved with the said Order, she ought to have filed an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Instead she filed another Domestic Violence Complaint before learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvottiyur, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence, liable to be struck off. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition and quash the D.V.C. No.20 of 2022 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvottiyur. He would rely on Satish Chander Ahuja -vs- Sneha Ahuja, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 414 to contend that this case does not come under the purview of the as there is no element of permanency of stay involved in this case.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the respondent is residing in the Thiruvottiyur property since the beginning, based on the Settlement Deed dated 23.04.2008 executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent/wife. Thereafter, the petitioner cancelled the Settlement Deed on 2