JURISDICTION TO FILE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE

The protection of women from domestic violence Act 2005 is a beneficial legislation for the women. It provide for more effective protection of the right of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The act provides manifold jurisdiction to institute a complaint to an aggrieved person as such the act is very liberal so for as jurisdiction is concern, in compare with other laws.

Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 addresses the issue of jurisdiction. Section 27 of the Act reads 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 under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.

Therefore a plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that the petition under the Domestic Violence Act can be filed in a court where the “person aggrieved” permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed.

In the case of “Shyam Lal Devda & Anr. Vs. Parimala (Crl.appeal.no.141/2020 )”decided on 22.01.2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “In the present case, the respondent is residing with her parents within the territorial limits of Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. In view of Section 27(1)

(a) of the Act, the Metropolitan Magistrate court, Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offence. There is no merit in the contention raising objection as to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru. In the result, Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 filed against the appellants No.3 to 13 is quashed and this appeal is partly allowed. The learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru shall proceed with Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 against appellants No.1, 2 and 14 and dispose the same in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.”