Ronita Biswas | National Law University, Orissa | 5th February 2020
Shyamlal Devda & Ors. v. Parimala (Criminal Appeal No, 141 of 2020)
Facts
The marriage of the Respondent-wife and the Appellant (Appellant no. 14) were solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs in Rajasthan. After marriage, the Respondent was residing with the Appellant in her matrimonial house along with the Appellant’s parents (Appellant no. 1 and 2). In 2014 Respondent and her husband went to Bengaluru from Chennai to attend Respondent’s sister wedding. After the said wedding, the Respondent expressed her desire to remain at Bengaluru for some time; which was acceded to by Appellant No.14 with the understanding that the Respondent would stay in her parent’s house for short time. According to the Appellants, the Respondent thereafter refused to join her matrimonial home or cohabit with Appellant No.14. Appellant No.14 filed a suit under s.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court. Thereafter, Respondent claiming herself to be a victim of domestic violence seeking protection order (s.18 of Domestic Violence Act) and residence order (s.19 of Domestic Violence Act) and monetary relief (s. 20 of Domestic Violence Act) filed a suit before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (MM)against her husband, her in-laws and other relatives of her husband who are in Chennai, Rajasthan and also in Gujarat. The Magistrate held that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the Respondent under s. 27 of the Domestic Violence Act.
The Appellants had filed a petition under s.482 Cr.P.C. before the HC seeking quashing of the entire proceedings. The HC dismissed the petition by holding that various instances of domestic violence at different places viz. Chennai, Rajasthan and Gujarat were stated in the complaint and therefore, the complaint filed in Bengaluru was maintainable under s.27 of the Domestic Violence Act. Being aggrieved, the Appellants had appealed before the SC.
Appellant’s contention
The Appellant submitted that neither the marriage of the parties nor their matrimonial house was at Bengaluru. Therefore, the Magistrate Court at Bengaluru had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under the Domestic Violence Act. Further, only vague allegations had been levelled against the family members of the Appellant with a view to harass them. Hence, the complaint was an abuse of the process of the Court.
Respondent’s contention
The Respondent pointed out as per s. 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, the place where the complainant permanently or temporarily resided or carried on business, the Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and grant protection order and other orders under the Domestic Violence Act. Since the Respondent was then residing within the territorial limit of the MM of Bengaluru city, the said court had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further submitted that several instances of domestic violence against the Respondent was perpetrated by her husband and in-laws, who had taken away the Respondent’s jewellery and was insisting upon her to buy properties.
Held
The Court held that the Metropolitan Court of Bengaluru had the jurisdiction to try the case as per s. 27(1) (a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
However, there were no specific allegations as to how relatives of the Appellant have perpetrated the acts of domestic violence, who were then residing at Gujarat and Rajasthan. The Court held that there was no prima-facie case against the Appellants. Hence, the criminal case of domestic violence cannot be continued and was liable to be quashed.
Leave a Reply