The Bombay High Court has recently decided on whether complaint under Section-27 of the DV Act can be filed at a place where Wife visits 'casually'?

The single-Judge Bench of Justice SK Shinde was dealing with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC assailing Lower Court order wherein the MM refused to entertain an application, under Section 12 of the D.V. Act for want of jurisdiction envisaged under Section 27 of the said Act.

Brief Facts of the Case

The appellant was living as guest in one hotel at Bombay as she fled home due to alleged mental, emotional and financial violence against her by her husband and brother. In view of the same she sought MM's intervention and filed for a slew of reliefs. Inter-alia, she sought ex-parte protection and residence orders under Section 23(2) of the D.V. Act.

The MM rejected the above petition and held that the Petitioner is neither permanently nor temporarily residing or carrying on business within the local limits of jurisdiction and in consequence, returned the application to her.

Aggrieved, the appellant approached High Court.

Arguements and High Court Observation 

The Counsel for the appellant agrued that jurisdiction under Section 27 of the D.V. Act, cannot be construed narrowly, as the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. He submitted that expression ‘temporarily resides’ includes a temporary shelter made in the hotel or such other place.

He thus contended that the learned Magistrate defeated object of the Act by declining to exercise jurisdiction.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that expression ‘temporarily reside’ cannot be equated with casual visit or casual stay at a place with no intention to reside there as such. He argued that there has to be some material to show that the person is residing there and not merely visiting for some days. He argued that simply, because she is temporarily residing at hotel, within the local limits of 71st Metropolitan Magistrate, that itself was not good, to hold and infer that she had intention to reside in the local limits of the said Court.

He cited SC Judgement in Shyamlal Devda and Others Vs. Parimala, 2020 Latest Caselaw 67 SC along with a number of other cases of High Courts and others.

The Court uphled the MM's view and held that the Applicant was not “temporarily” residing within the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Magistrate and no cause of action arose in Mumbai. It further observed that Applicants’ visit to Mumbai was ‘casual visit’ and no intention to stay at a particular place can be identified:

"The facts pleaded in the application and the documents produced in support of her case only belief, leads to indicate that Applicants’ visit to Mumbai was ‘casual visit’ and does not imply definite intention to  stay at a particular place. Therefore, order passed by the Magistrate cannot be faulted with, either for wrong or non-exercise of jurisdiction. In fact if liberal construction is placed upon the provision, made under Section 27 of the Act, as sought by the Applicants, it may lead to abuse of legal process of law, as aggrieved person may choose, any place, where she may be a casual visitor."

 The Court cited Delhi High Court Judgement in Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs. Mamta Pandey and another judgement of Rabindra Nath Sahu & Another Vs. Smt. Susila Sahu 2016 in which it was held that temporary residence does not include residence in a lodge or hostel or residence at a place only for the purpose of filing a domestic violence case and further observed that this temporary residence must be also be a continuing residence from the date of acquiring residence till the application under Section 12 is disposed of.

The High Court dismissed the petition accordingly.

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon