The jurisdiction for domestic violence cases favors the residence of the aggrieved party, ensuring access to justice, as emphasized in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

JUDGMENT :

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J:

1. The application has been filed under section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for transfer of Criminal Misc. Case No.41 of 2024 from the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-J.M.F.C., Pipili to the court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division-cum-J.M.F.C., Kendrapara.

2. Before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-J.M.F.C., Pipili, the case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was initiated after the Protection Officer under the D.V. Act had forwarded Domestic Inspection Report (DIR) as a follow up of the complaint made by the opposite party-daughter-in-law before the Protection Officer.

The transfer is sought for by the in laws, petitioners-opposite parties before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pipili.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party were heard at length.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1-father-in-law is aged about 71 years and petitioner no.2-mother-in-law is aged about 67 years though other four petitioners are aged in between 35 and 44 years. It is submitted that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and other petitioners are facing difficulty in attending the matter at Pipili.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party refers to the Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and relies on sub-section 1(a) of Section 27, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on Section 27(1)(b).

6. For convenience of reference, Section 27 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is reproduced herein:

“27. Jurisdiction –(1) The Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrates, 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.”

7. In the case at hand, the submission on behalf of the petitioners one and two who are the opposite parties in the D.V. Case before the learned Judicial Magistrate is correct to the extent they are aged for which they are having some ailments and have limitations in attending the matter at Pipili.

8. Simultaneously, this Court has to take note of and consider the legislative intent of providing the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for initiation of the case to be within the local limits of which the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed. It has to be noticed that the entry in the jurisdiction clause gives a preference [at clause 1(a) of S. 27] as far as the place of residence of the person aggrieved is concerned.

9. The preamble of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 43 of 2005 indicates the following:

“THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 (43 of 2005)

[13^th September, 2005]

An Act to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”

The definition Section i.e. Section 2(a) defines ‘aggrieved person’ and (b) defines ‘child’. The said definitions are reproduced herein:

“2. Definitions – In this