Crl.MC No.4044/2009

Sharad Kumar Pandey v Mamta Pandey

Page 1 Of 8

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: August 10^th, 2010

Date of Order: September 01, 2010

+ Crl.M.C.No.4044 of 2009

%

01.09.2010

Sharad Kumar Pandey

...Petitioner

Versus

Mamta Pandey

...Respondent

Counsels:

Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei for petitioner.

Ms. Liyi Marli Noshi for respondent.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

Yes.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing/ setting aside the order and

judgment dated 3^rd November 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi

dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner against an order passed by learned

Magistrate taking cognizance of a complaint under Section 12 of The Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, “the Act”).

2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the court of

Magistrate and before the court of learned ASJ was that the marriage between the

parties was solemnized in Lucknow on 22^nd February 2004. Before marriage, the

complainant/ respondent was living in Lucknow at her parental house and was doing

2010:DHC:4306

Crl.MC No.4044/2009

Sharad Kumar Pandey v Mamta Pandey

Page 2 Of 8

Ph.D. research work in Lucknow under supervision of Mr. R. C. Tripathi. After marriage,

the respondent/wife remained at Lucknow, occasionally, she went to Shillong where

petitioner i.e. husband of the complainant wife/ was posted. The incident of domestic

violence, if any, had taken place in Lucknow and nothing happened at Delhi. However,

the complaint against the petitioner was lodged at Delhi. He submitted that the

complainant/ wife had given address of 175, Gulmohar Enclave, New Delhi, a house

where brother-in-law of complainant/ wife namely Mr. Rajesh Ojha was residing. The

Court at Delhi would have no jurisdiction.

3. The facts regarding place of marriage and residence are not in dispute. The

learned Sessions Judge relying on Bhagwan Das and another v Kamal Abrol and others

(2005) 11 SCC 66 observed that since the temporary residence being one of the incident

of jurisdiction the controversy whether the residence of the wife at Delhi was a temporary

residence or not, can be decided only after the evidence. He also observed that the

Domestic Violence Act being a new Act, there was lack of judgments given by the

superior courts on the issue and the issue would be clarified only when some decisions

of superior courts come on this point. He observed that if the wife was able to prove that

her temporary residence was in Delhi with her sister within the meaning of Section 27 of

the Act, the trial court would have jurisdiction to decide the matter. However, this fact can

be decided only on the basis of evidence, he left the question open.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the residence of the wife with her

sister at Delhi cannot give jurisdiction to the Court at Delhi when none of the incidents of

domestic violence had taken place at Delhi nor the marriage took place in Delhi nor the

wife ever, before filing the petition lived at Delhi nor the parents of the wife were living in

Delhi nor the parties lived together at Delhi. It is submitted that this Court should clarify

the position.

2010:DHC:4306

Crl.MC No.4044/2009

Sharad Kumar Pandey v Mamta Pandey

Page 3 Of 8

5. Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, which is about jurisdiction reads as

under:

India.”

6. Every statute has to be interpreted keeping in mind the purpose for which it has

been enacted and the interpretation must be such so as to ad