IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Rabindra Nath Sahu & Another - Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Susila Sahu - Opp. party
TRPCRL NO. 20 of 2016
Decided On : 14-09-2016
Domestic Violence - Jurisdiction - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 27
Fact of the Case:
The widow mother filed an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her son and daughter-in-law, alleging physical and mental cruelty and seeking reliefs under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the application was maintainable in the Court of S.D.J.M., Phulbani, as the aggrieved person had mentioned her present address at the place where she was staying and subjected to domestic violence.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted section 27 of the 2005 Act, emphasizing that the jurisdiction can be invoked by an 'aggrieved person' before the competent Court on the basis of temporary residence, and that even for a temporary period of time, an aggrieved person can seek reliefs under the Act by filing an appropriate application before the competent Court within the local limits whose jurisdiction such place situates.
Final Decision: The TRPCRL application seeking transfer of the case to another court was dismissed, and the Magistrate was directed to dispose of the case within sixty days.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Sahoo, J.
1. Mother’s love is divine. It is unselfish and unending. It flows gently but unrelentingly like the holy water of Ganges. Mother is the root which takes all the pain in growing the child plant and feeds him right from the womb. She is the truest friend who gives support to her child in every situation. She takes food only after her child eats satisfactorily; she sleeps only when her child sleeps comfortably. What a tragedy when a widow mother in the twilight of her life is compelled to leave the house by none else than her son and daughter-in-law?
2. The petitioners are the son and daughter-in-law of the opposite party.
3. The opposite party filed an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘2005 Act’) in the Court of S.D.J.M., Phulbani against the petitioners seeking reliefs under the Act which was registered as Misc. Case No.3 of 2016.
4. It is the case of the opposite party that the petitioners subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and drove her out of the house for which she was constrained to take shelter in the house of her elder daughter Santoshi Kumari Sahoo at Nadikhanda Sahi, Phulbani.
5. This application under section 407 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners seeking for transfer of Misc. Case No.3 of 2016 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Phulbani to the Court of S.D.J.M., Berhampur.
6. Heard Mr. Ashok Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Miss Deepali Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the ancestral house of the opposite party is at Berhampur and now she is also staying at Berhampur and she had earlier instituted two cases against the petitioner no.1 at Berhampur and therefore, the S.D.J.M. Court at Phulbani has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 12 of 2005 Act filed by the opposite party and therefore, the case should be transferred to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand contended that in the application itself, in column no.3, it is mentioned that the opposite party is now residing in the house of her elder daughter namely, Santoshi Kumari Sahu at Phulbani and that her present address is at Nadikhanda Sahi, Phulbani and therefore, the Court of S.D.J.M., Phulbani has got jurisdiction to entertain the application.
9. Section 27 of the 2005 Act deals with the jurisdiction of the competent Court to pass necessary orders under the Act and also to try the offences under the Act.
Section 27 of 2005 Act reads as follows:-
“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 under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.”
10. Thus in view of section 27, if the ‘aggrieved person’ either permanently or temporarily resides at a place, the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class within the local limits whose jurisdiction such place situates is competent to entertain an application under Section 12 of 2005 Act and to grant protection order and other orders under the Act or try the offences under the Act.
11. The legislature in its wisdom has provided that jurisdiction can be invoked by an ‘aggrieved person’ before the competent Court on the basis of temporary residence. The word “temporarily” means lasting, existing, serving for a time only which is not permanent. A temporary residence is a temporary dwelling place of the aggrieved person who has for the time being decided to make that place as her home. An aggriev
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.