Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan, J.—This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 28.2.2013 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2012 (Vikas Rastogee v. Pooja Rastogee) arising out of Criminal Complaint Case No. 36 of the 2012, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as D.V. Act) whereby the criminal appeal filed by the revisionist against the order dated 12.9.2012 passed by ACJM. Court No. 10, Varanasi has been dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present criminal revision are that the marriage of revisionist Vikas Rastogee was solemnised with opposite party No. 2 Pooja Rastogee on 25.2.2007. Matrimonial discord erupted between them during same year. Revisionist alleges that his wife Pooja Rastogee failed to full fill her marital obligations but Pooja Rastogee blames the revisionist for demanding additional dowry and her mal-treatment at the hands of revisionist and his family members for failure to fulfill dowry demands. This matrimonial discord resulted in initiation of several litigations including the divorce petition at the behest of revisionist, proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., an FIR under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act and application under the D.V. Act at several places at the instance of wife.

3. Considering the pendency of these cases, it would not be appropriate for this Court to discuss all the facts and available evidence in detail. Moreover, the scope of criminal revision is very limited under Section 397 Cr.P.C. as it imposes some limitations for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Superior Courts can only examine the correctness, legality, propriety and jurisdictional error of any findings, sentence or order, passed by the inferior Courts. It cannot substitute its own findings in place of findings of the subordinate Courts. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, it will be beyond power and jurisdiction of superior Courts to re-assess the evidence. Appraisal of the evidence is not permissible in revision. Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Kerala v. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri”, AIR 1999 SC 981", has held that the High Courts while hearing revision do not work as a Appellate Court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done.

4. For the purposes of present criminal revision, this Court has to decide as to whether the Court at Varanasi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application of opposite party No. 2 (Pooja Rastogee) under Section 12 of the D.V. Act and secondly, as to whether the same is barred by limitation?

5. Admittedly, opposite party No. 2 has initiated several criminal proceedings from District Kaimur, Bihar. Revisionist claims once the opposite party No. 2 has shown District Kaimur, Bihar as her place of residence, she cannot initiate proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V. Act from Varanasi. Without going into details, it would be appropriate to refer the provision of Section 27 of the D.V. Act, which reads thus :

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.

(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 Ac