Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 3075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MADAN PAL SINGH, J.
Charanjeet Kaur @ Manpreet Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 738 of 2024
Decided On : 11-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Shobha Vati, Shyam Narayan Verma
For the Respondent: Upendra Kumar Singh

The D.V. Act allows complaints in local jurisdictions where the domestic violence cause of action arose, embracing a broad definition of domestic relationships to ensure protection for women subjected to domestic abuse.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 and Section 27 - Jurisdiction of Magistrate - The appellate court set aside the trial court's order on grounds of jurisdiction concerning a Domestic Violence complaint filed by the revisionist - The core issue addressed was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the complaint originating from a domestic dispute - The court held that the last cause of action accrued in Bareilly, thereby maintaining jurisdiction for the trial court to adjudicate the matter. (Paras 3, 10, 27)

(B) Domestic Violence - Definition and Scope - Domestic violence encompasses physical, sexual, emotional, and economic abuse, extending to scenarios involving dowry demands, irrespective of marital status at the time of proceedings - The law allows relief regardless of the current relation dues to prior domestic relationships - The court reiterated that the definition of 'aggrieved person' remains broad and includes women subjected to domestic relationships, no matter the current status. (Paras 10, 14, 26)

Facts of the case:
The revisionist alleged domestic violence by her in-laws and husband, including physical abuse and dowry demands, after their marriage on 27th May 2005. She filed a complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act after previous complaints went unaddressed. The trial court granted relief, but subsequently, the appellate court set aside the ruling, citing jurisdiction issues.

Findings of Court:
The court found the appellate court erred in determining jurisdiction, affirming the trial court held the proper authority given the circumstances of the complaint's origin.

Issues: The primary issue was the determination of jurisdiction concerning domestic violence complaints under the D.V. Act, particularly if the trial court erred in adjudicating the revisionist's complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the jurisdiction is determined by where the cause of action arises, which in this case was Bareilly, reinforcing that the D.V. Act's provisions remain applicable even if the aggrieved party is no longer in a live-in relationship.

Result: Criminal revision allowed, reaffirming trial court’s jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Shyam Narayan Verma and Ms. Shobha Wati, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist with the prayer to set aside the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Bareilly dated 16th November, 2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2022 (Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Another) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "D.V. Act"), Police Station-Baradari, District-Bareilly, whereby the appeal filed by opposite party no.2 against the judgment and order dated 8th September, 2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C., Court no.1, Bareilly in the case under Section 12 of the D.V. Act has been allowed and set aside the said order of the Civil Judge.

3. The crux of the allegation made by the revisionist is that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with Sardar Rao Virendra Singh on 27th May, 2005 in accordance with Sikhism Rites and Customs at Sitarganj, Uttarakhand. From the aforesaid wedlock, three daughters, namely, Devendra Kaur, Ms. Parveen Kaur and Sukhmani Kaur were born. After some time of marriage, the relationship between the revisionist with her in-laws including her husband became strained and incompatible. Consequently, the revisionist had given an application before the Superintendent of Police, Alwar Rajasthan, the last being dated 15th August, 2016 wherein it was alleged that for additional demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- as also for her being delivered three female children, her two brothers-in-laws had beaten her badly with sticks from which she had sustained head injuries and her treatment was undertaken at Government Hospital, Govindgarh, Alwar, Rajasthan. On 20th September, 2016, the revisionist, her parents and other family members came to office of Monitor Patrika of Baradari, Stadium Road, Police Station-Baradari, District Bareilly where a meeting/'Panchayat'’ was fixed. In-laws of the revisionist along with some known persons armed with weapons also came there and participated in the meeting. During the meeting, at around 07:00 p.m. all the members of her in-laws started to abuse the revisionist and her father while threatening that unless they do not fulfil their additional demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/-, they would not allow the revisionist to stay/live at her in-laws' place along with her three daughters. Consequently, an application was made by the revisionist before the Senior Superintendent of Police Bareilly. Although the most of the cause of action arose in Sitarganj, Uttarakhand but due to said marriage, the last cause of action arose at a office in the name of Monitor Patrika situated at the Police Station-Baradari, District-Bareilly, the revisionist made a complaint bearing Complaint Case No. 984 of 2016 (Smt. Charanjeet Kaur @ Manjeet Kaur Vs. Sardar Rao Virendra Singh @ Bhola Singh and Others) under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, Police Station-Baradari, District-Barielly on 3rd October, 2016. The court below, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case vide ex-parte order dated 8th September, 2022 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act allowed the said complaint and directed her in-laws including her husband either to make arrangement for a residential accommodation to her along with her daughters or to pay Rs. 9,000/- per month under Section 19 of the D.V. Act. The court below has also directed the in-laws of the revisionist to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (rupees four lacs only) to the revisionist and her three daughters for their maintenance under Section 20 (3) of D.V.Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party no. 2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2022 (Surendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Charanjeet Kaur & Manpreet Kaur) under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The