Case Note & Summary
The applicants (husband and his relatives) challenged the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon, in Regular Complaint Case No. 12 of 2011, which had issued notice to them under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondents (wife and her child) had filed a complaint alleging domestic violence and sought reliefs under the Act. The applicants contended that the Magistrate at Amgaon lacked jurisdiction because the respondents were not 'ordinarily residing' at Amgaon; the wife had left the matrimonial home at Hinganghat and was temporarily staying at her parental home in Amgaon. The court examined Section 27 of the DV Act, which allows the aggrieved person to file a complaint in the court within whose local jurisdiction the person 'ordinarily resides' or carries on business. The court held that the term 'ordinarily resides' refers to the place where the person permanently or habitually resides, not a temporary shelter taken after leaving the matrimonial home. Since the wife's ordinary residence was at Hinganghat (the matrimonial home), the complaint at Amgaon was not maintainable. The court quashed the order and directed the respondents to file the complaint before the appropriate court at Hinganghat.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction - Domestic Violence - Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Interpretation of 'ordinarily resides' - The court considered whether the term 'ordinarily resides' in Section 27 includes a temporary shelter taken by the wife after leaving the matrimonial home. Held that 'ordinarily resides' means the place where the person permanently or habitually resides, not a temporary residence taken after leaving the matrimonial home. The complaint filed at Amgaon, where the wife resided temporarily after leaving the matrimonial home at Hinganghat, was not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 when the respondent-wife was residing temporarily at Amgaon after leaving the matrimonial home at Hinganghat.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application, quashed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon, and directed the respondents to file the complaint before the appropriate court at Hinganghat.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- 'ordinarily resides' interpretation
- temporary shelter not constituting ordinary residence
- domestic violence complaint jurisdiction
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (01) 82
Criminal Application (apl) No.564 of 2011
Mr. Anup Dhore for the applicants, Mr. V.K. Paliwal for respondent nos. 1 and 2
Manoj Harikisanji Changani, Smt. Pushpabai widow of Harikisanji Changani, Sau. Radha wife of Manoj Changani, Sau. Harsha wife of Sohan Acharya
Sau. Prema Shrinivas Changani, Ku. Khushbu daughter of Shrinivas Changani, Shrinivas son of Harikisanji Changani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application challenging the order of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon, issuing notice under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
The applicants sought quashing of the order passed by the Magistrate at Amgaon on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Filing Reason
The respondents filed a complaint under the DV Act at Amgaon, where the wife was temporarily residing after leaving the matrimonial home at Hinganghat.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon, passed an order below Exh.9 in Regular Complaint Case No. 12 of 2011, issuing notice to the applicants.
Issues
Whether the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 when the respondent-wife was residing temporarily at Amgaon after leaving the matrimonial home at Hinganghat.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that the respondents were not 'ordinarily residing' at Amgaon; the wife had left the matrimonial home at Hinganghat and was temporarily staying at her parental home in Amgaon, so the Magistrate at Amgaon lacked jurisdiction.
The respondents contended that the wife was residing at Amgaon and thus the complaint was maintainable there.
Ratio Decidendi
The term 'ordinarily resides' in Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 means the place where the aggrieved person permanently or habitually resides, not a temporary shelter taken after leaving the matrimonial home. Therefore, the complaint filed at a place where the wife resided temporarily after leaving the matrimonial home is not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The term 'ordinarily resides' in Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 refers to the place where the aggrieved person permanently or habitually resides, not a temporary shelter taken after leaving the matrimonial home.
Procedural History
The respondents filed Regular Complaint Case No. 12 of 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amgaon, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Magistrate passed an order below Exh.9 issuing notice to the applicants. The applicants challenged this order by filing Criminal Application No. 564 of 2011 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and decided on 11th January 2012.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 27
