IMPORTANT POINT
Territorial Jurisdiction of Magistrate – It is requirement of Section 27 of D.V. Act that, in order to confer territorial jurisdiction upon a Judicial Magistrate First Class, there has to be at least a temporary residence within territorial jurisdiction of Court – D.V. Act does not provide punishment to offenders; it is a remedial statute, designed to protect welfare of beneficiaries of social justice.

JUDGMENT

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally, with the consent of the respective parties, at the admission stage.

2. The petitioners assail the judgment and order dated 07th May, 2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (for short, “learned Additional Sessions Judge”) in PWDVA Appeal No. 30 of 2025, whereby dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 28th January, 2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (for short, “learned Magistrate”) in PWDVA No. 85 of 2024, below Exh.6, whereby rejected the application filed by the petitioners, raising an objection that the learned Magistrate at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the application under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ‘D.V. Act’), and held that the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the application.

Factual Matrix :-

3. On 29th November, 2022, Petitioner No.1 married the respondent. Until December 2022, the respondent resided with Petitioner No. 1 at her matrimonial house in Latur. On 27th March, 2023, she filed a complaint with the Women Grievance Redressal Cell, Latur, against the petitioners for illtreating her. Then, on 13th April, 2023, she lodged an F.I.R. at the MIDC Police Station, Latur, against the petitioners. Thereafter, on 20th February, 2024, she filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, contending that she is temporarily residing at the house of her cousin-uncle at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for further education; therefore, the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to try, entertain, and decide the application.

4. Pursuant to the summons, the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and filed an application contending that the respondent has not filed any document to show that she is residing within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. She has deliberately omitted to state in the complaint that the education she is pursuing and the times and places at which she took admission, thereby suppressing this information. She has not produced any document before the Court to show that she is pursuing education. Therefore, it was contended that the respondent does not reside within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. Thus, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the application. Hence, they urged that the respondent’s application be dismissed on the ground that the learned Magistrate lacks jurisdiction.

5. After considering the material on record, the learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the petitioners, holding that, as per Section 27 of the D.V. Act, the Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the application as the respondent is temporarily residing at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred the appeal, PWDVA Appeal No. 30 of 2025, before the learned Sessions Court, which, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, holding that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is just and proper and therefore, the application filed by the respondent is tenable before the learned Magistrate. Hence, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

6. Mr. Deshmukkh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge have not taken into consideration that the marriage of Petitioner No.1 and the respondent was solemnized on 29th November, 2022, at Latur. After the marriage, the respondent resided with Petitioner No. 1 in Latur, and after leaving his company, she lived with her parents in the village of Borda, Tq. Kalamb, Dist. Dharashiv, and not at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar; therefore, filing the complaint at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar is nothing but an abuse of the process of law to harass the petitioners,