Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5389 of 2022

Revisionist :- Smt. Soniya Agarwal

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ankit Agarval

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kumar Yadav

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None

has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 despite taking case in revised

list.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated

18.05.2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5,

Bulandshahar, in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2021 (Pramesh Kumar Mittal and

two others vs. State of U.P. and another), whereby the appeal was allowed and the

order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the trial court in Complaint Case No. 172 of 2020

(Smt. Soniya Agarwal vs. Pramesh Kumar Mittal and others), under Section 12 of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as D

V Act), P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar, was set aside, holding that the

Trial Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case in question.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that impugned order is

against the facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. The revisionist is wife of

respondent No. 4 and that as she was being subjected to domestic violence, thus,

she has filed the complaint under the provisions of D.V. Act against the private

respondents. Initially the respondent did not appear in the proceedings and by order

dated 03.10.2016 the respondent No.4 was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.

5000/- per month to the revisionist. Learned counsel submitted that later on

respondents appeared in the proceedings of the said case and both the parties have

led their respective evidence. During evidence no objection was raised regarding

territorial jurisdiction of the Court. It was submitted that after evidence of the

parties was over, the private respondents have filed an application before the Trial

Court raising objection that the said Court has no territorial jurisdiction to

adjudicate the matter. That application was rejected by the Court of Additional

Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, FTC, Court No.4, Bulandshahar vide order dated

28.09.2021. The respondents have challenged the said order by filing Criminal

Appeal No. 145 of 2021, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated

18.05.2022 and the above referred order dated 28.09.2021 was set aside. Learned

counsel has referred the provisions of Section 27 and 28 of D.V. Act and submitted

that the Court below did not consider the matter in correct perspective. The case of

revisionist is covered under Section 27 of Domestic Violence Act. Referring to

facts of the matter and case of Rupali Devi vs. State of U.P. 2003 (11) SCC 126, it

was submitted that the impugned order, being against facts and law, is liable to be

set aside.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and argued that there is no illegality or

perversity in the impugned order.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to mention the provisions of Section

27 of Domestic Violence Act which read as under:

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 this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.

7. It is apparent from the provisions of section 27 of D.V. Act that the person

aggrieved may file the complaint the provisions of DV Act