Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by the husband, Nitin Vikas Karake, challenging the orders of the JMFC, Satara and the Sessions Court, Satara, which rejected his application for dismissal of the wife's complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The husband and wife were married on 18 December 2014. The wife was a widow at the time of marriage. Due to disputes, the wife filed a complaint under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the D.V. Act before the JMFC, Satara, alleging domestic violence. She stated that she was residing in Pune for computer education but frequently visited Satara, and her brother, Akshay Arun Patil, who lived in Satara, was taking care of her expenses. The husband filed an application (Exhibit-18) seeking rejection of the complaint on the ground that the JMFC, Satara lacked jurisdiction because the wife was not residing in Satara. The JMFC rejected the application, and the Sessions Court dismissed the husband's appeal. The husband then filed the present revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The main legal issue was whether the JMFC, Satara had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The husband argued that the wife was not residing in Satara but in Pune, and that the brother's house was not a shared household. The wife contended that she was residing at her brother's house in Satara for education and that the court at Satara had jurisdiction. The High Court analyzed the provisions of the D.V. Act, particularly Section 12 (application to Magistrate) and Section 27 (jurisdiction), and held that the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the place where the aggrieved person resides has the power to grant protection. The court noted that the wife's residence at her brother's house in Satara, even if temporary, was a place where she lived in a domestic relationship, and thus the brother's house could be considered a shared household under Section 2(s) of the D.V. Act. The court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Section 397 CrPC - Maintainability - Revision against concurrent findings of JMFC and Sessions Court under D.V. Act - Held that revisional court will not interfere unless there is perversity or illegality (Paras 1, 7). B) Domestic Violence - Jurisdiction - Section 12, 27 D.V. Act - Place of residence of aggrieved person - Wife residing at her brother's house in Satara for education - Held that the court at the place where the aggrieved person resides has jurisdiction, and the brother's house can be a shared household (Paras 8-10). C) Domestic Violence - Shared Household - Section 2(s) D.V. Act - Definition includes household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship - Held that the wife's residence at her brother's house qualifies as shared household (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the JMFC, Satara had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, when the wife was residing at her brother's house in Satara for education purposes.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Application, upholding the orders of the JMFC and Sessions Court.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act
- Shared household definition
- Residence of aggrieved person
- Section 2(s) of D.V. Act
- Section 12 of D.V. Act
