Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ramesh s/o Mohanlal Bhutada and Shobha w/o Ramesh Bhutada, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking to quash orders dated 15.2.2010 and 18.7.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akot and the Additional Sessions Judge, Akot respectively. The background of the dispute involves an application filed by respondent No.2, Arti w/o Harshad Bhutada, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act of 2005). Arti married Harshad Ramesh Bhutada on 11.7.2008 at Akola, and after marriage, the couple resided at Nasik. The petitioners, who are the parents of Harshad, challenged the jurisdiction of the JMFC at Akot to entertain the application, arguing that the alleged domestic violence occurred at Nasik, not Akot. The JMFC, by order dated 15.2.2010, held that it had jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act of 2005. This order was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge on 18.7.2010. The petitioners then approached the High Court. The legal issue was whether the JMFC at Akot had jurisdiction to entertain the application when the aggrieved person resided at Nasik after marriage and the alleged incident occurred there. The court considered the submissions of the parties, noting that it was undisputed that the order on jurisdiction was passed without recording statements of the parties or considering documents relied upon. The court held that under Section 27 of the Act of 2005, jurisdiction is determined by the place where the aggrieved person ordinarily resides or carries on business, not the place of marriage or temporary stay. Since Arti resided at Nasik after marriage, the JMFC at Akot lacked jurisdiction. The court quashed both impugned orders and allowed the petition, directing that the application be filed before the appropriate court at Nasik.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction - Domestic Violence Act - Section 27 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The issue was whether the JMFC at Akot had jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Act when the aggrieved person resided at Nasik after marriage and the alleged incident occurred at Nasik. The court held that jurisdiction under Section 27 is determined by the place where the aggrieved person ordinarily resides or carries on business, not the place of marriage or temporary stay. The impugned orders were quashed as the JMFC at Akot lacked jurisdiction. (Paras 3-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Natural Justice - Recording of Statements - Section 27 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The court noted that the order on jurisdiction was passed without recording statements of parties or considering documents relied upon. Held that such an order is unsustainable as it violates principles of natural justice. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akot had jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 when the alleged domestic violence occurred at Nasik and the aggrieved person resided at Nasik after marriage.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.7.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akot and the order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akot are quashed and set aside. The application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shall be filed before the appropriate court at Nasik.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Section 27 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 is determined by place of residence or employment of aggrieved person
- not place of marriage or temporary stay
- Place of filing must be where aggrieved person ordinarily resides or works
- Order without recording statements or considering documents is unsustainable
