Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Afia Rasheed Khan, married Respondent No. 1 in December 1993 in Hyderabad and had a son, Respondent No. 2. She alleged that both respondents subjected her to mental, emotional, and financial domestic violence. Apprehending risk to her life, she fled the matrimonial home in Hyderabad on two occasions and took shelter in hotels. Unable to bear the torture, she came to Mumbai on 27 September 2021 and stayed as a guest at a hotel in the Bandra Kurla Complex. She later moved to the Grand Hyatt Hotel in BKC, Mumbai, after being stalked by unknown persons at the instance of the respondents. On 6 and 7 October 2021, she lodged complaints at BKC Police Station regarding being watched, stalked, and her net banking account hacked. She then filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai, seeking protection. The Magistrate, by order dated 23 October 2021, refused to entertain the application for want of territorial jurisdiction under Section 27 of the DV Act and directed the return of the application. The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 27 of the DV Act, which allows an aggrieved person to file an application in the place where she resides or carries on business, or where the respondent resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action arises. The court noted that the DV Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide immediate relief to victims of domestic violence, and its jurisdiction provisions must be interpreted liberally. The court held that the petitioner, being temporarily resident in Mumbai at the time of filing the application, could invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Bandra. The court set aside the Magistrate's order and directed the Magistrate to entertain the application on merits and dispose it of expeditiously, preferably within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Domestic Violence Act - Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The court held that Section 27 of the DV Act provides for wider territorial jurisdiction than Section 177 CrPC, allowing the aggrieved person to file an application in the place where she temporarily resides, even if the shared household is elsewhere. The Magistrate erred in returning the application for want of jurisdiction. (Paras 5-16) B) Domestic Violence - Protection of Women - Object and Purpose - The DV Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide immediate relief to victims of domestic violence. The provisions regarding jurisdiction must be interpreted liberally to advance the object of the Act. (Paras 5-16) C) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside an erroneous order passed by a Magistrate that defeats the purpose of the DV Act. (Paras 1-3, 16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by a wife who had fled her matrimonial home in Hyderabad and was temporarily residing in a hotel in Mumbai.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order dated 23 October 2021 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai, and directed the Magistrate to entertain the application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on merits and dispose it of expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 is wider than Section 177 CrPC
- includes place where aggrieved person temporarily resides
- purpose of DV Act is to provide immediate relief
- liberal interpretation of jurisdiction provisions
