Madras High Court
Vijesh vs /Arya on 25 January, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.869 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.869 of 2019 &
Crl.M.P.No.12774 of 2019
1.Vijesh
2.Vijalakshmi
3.Unnikrishnan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1/Arya
2.V.Vaishnav (Baby)
S/o.Vijesh,
Rep. by his Mother and Natural Guardian
Namely, P.Arya.
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside
the order of the learned Judge of Mahila Court at Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris
in Crl.A.No.26 of 2019, dated 19.07.2019, confirming the order passed in in
M.C.No.14 of 2015, by the learned Principal District Munsif-cum Judicial
Magistrate, Gudalur, dated 23.01.2019.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.869 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mrs.Ezhilarasi
For M/s.T.Mathew
For Respondents : Mr.K.Bratheesh
For M/s.Naveen Kumar Murthi
ORDER
The first petitioner is the husband, second and third petitioners are the
parents of the first petitioner. The first respondent is the wife and the second
respondent is the son of the first respondent and the first petitioner.
2. Due to some matrimonial dispute, the first respondent/wife
approached the learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,
Gudalur in M.C.No.14 of 2015, under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (In short 'the Act") and obtained an order on
23.01.2019. Against which, the appeal filed by the first petitioner/husband, in
Crl.A.No.26 of 2019 before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris, was dismissed, by confirming the order passed by
the learned Principal District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Gudalur in
M.C.No.14 of 2015. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the petitioners/husband
and his parents are before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.869 of 2019
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the first petitioner
/ husband is that the first petitioner is residing in Kerala, the parents of the
first petitioner are also in Kerala, marriage took place in Kerala and parents of
the first respondent are also residing in Kerala and they are having permanent
and temporary residence in Kerala. Either the first respondent-wife or any of
the parties residing in Tamil Nadu and as such, no cause of action arisen to file
a case in Tamil Nadu. Hence, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the
orders of the Courts below.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent / wife
submitted that she resided temporarily in her relative house on the date of
filing of the petition at Gudalur and therefore, invoked jurisdiction Magistrate,
Gudalur and filed a petition under Section 12(1) the Act. The learned Judge,
after considering the entire facts, awarded maintenance to the respondents,
and the same was also confirmed by the learned appellate Judge, which
warrants no interference. With regard to jurisdictional issue, the learned
counsel has relied upon the Section 27 of the Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.869 of 2019
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials
available on record.
6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are residing only in Kerala
and marriage took place in Kerala, and at no point of time, the petitioners and
the respondents were resided in Tamil Nadu or any place in the jurisdiction of
the Magistrate or any place in Tamil Nadu. However, it is the contention of the
learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents were resided in her
relative house temporarily in Tamil Nadu and in support of his contentions,
referred Section 27 of the Act.
7. There is no quarrel of interpretation of Section 27 of the Act, either of
the parties in permanently or temporarily residing, they can invoke jurisdiction,
whereas, this Court is not satisfied with the stand taken by the respondents that
they are residing with the temporary residence in their relative house at
Gudalur, therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate has no
jurisdiction to entertain the application, as the case has been instituted against
the petitioners on the sole intention of harassing, when the family members of
both the petitioners and the respondents are residing permanently and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.869 of 2019
temporarily in Kerala. Marriage took place in Kerala. The respondent has not
established bona-fide reason for temporary residence in Gudalur, Tamil Nadu.
8. On the ground of jurisdiction alone, the orders passed by the Courts
below are set aside, without expressing any merit of the respective party.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. However, liberty is given
to the respondents to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate in Kerala, and work
out their remedy. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
25.01.2021
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes.
rns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.869 of 2019
To
1. The Mahila Court, Udhagamandalam
2.The Principal District Munsif-cum Judicial
Magistrate,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.869 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
rns
Crl.R.C.No.869 of 2019 &
Crl.M.P.No.12774 of 2019
25.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
