Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amit Agarwal vs Neetu Agarwal on 28 March, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 5) [CRLTP-14/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Crl.Misc.Trnfr.Pet. No. 14/2021
1. Amit Agarwal S/o Sh. Deenanath, Aged About 35 Years,
E-300, Paramount Golf Forest, Surajpur Site-C, Gautam
Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Deena Nath S/o Sh. N.l. Agarwal, Aged About 68 Years,
E-300, Paramount Golf Forest, Surajpur Site-C, Gautam
Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
3. Smt. Pista Agarwal W/o Sh. Deena Nath Agarwal, Aged
About 64 Years, E-300, Paramount Golf Forest, Surajpur
Site-C, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Neetu Agarwal W/o Amit Agarwal D/o Sh. Magraj Lohiya,
Aged About 37 Years, C/o Ashok Khetawat, Sigatro Ka
Baas, Malniyo Ka Chauhata, Bheenmal, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).
2. Minor Anaya D/o Amit Agarwal, Aged About 9 Years,
Through Mother Neetu. R/o C/o Ashok Khetawat, Sigatro
Ka Baas, Malniyo Ka Chauhata, Bheenmal, Dist. Jalore
(Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Crl.Misc.Trnfr.Pet. No. 13/2021
Amit Agarwal S/o Sh. Deenanath Agarwal, Aged About 35 Years,
E-300, Paramount Golf Forest, Surajpur Site-C, Gautam Budh
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Neetu Agarwal W/o Amit Agarwal D/o Sh. Magraj Lohiya,
Aged About 37 Years, C/o Ashok Khetawat, Sigatro Ka
Baas, Malniyo Ka Chauhata, Bheenmal, Dist. Jalore (Raj.).
2. Minor Anaya D/o Amit Agarwal, Aged About 9 Years,
Through Mother Neetu. R/o C/o Ashok Khetawat, Sigatro
Ka Baas, Malniyo Ka Chauhata, Bheenmal, Dist. Jalore
(Raj.).
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 30/03/2022 at 08:33:36 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLTP-14/2021]
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kirti Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Choudhary
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
Reportable
28/03/2022
In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its
highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of
all concerned.
In Criminal Transfer Petition No.14/2021:
Learned counsel for the petitioners harped that the
permanent residence of the respondents is at Balotra, and
therefore, the case could have been preferred there only.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the
submission.
Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, reads as
under:
"27. Jurisdiction.--
(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the
Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local
limits of which--
(a) the person aggrieved permanently or
temporarily resides or carries on business or is
employed; or
(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is
employed; or
(c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the
competent court to grant a protection order and other
orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.
(2) Any order made this Act shall be enforceable throughout
India."
(Downloaded on 30/03/2022 at 08:33:36 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLTP-14/2021]
This Court, on reading of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence
Act, 2005, finds that the legislature has consciously used, for the
jurisdiction in regard to filing of such a case, the words, "the
person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on
business or is employed".
The language of the statute is crystal clear, that even though
the respondents were admittedly permanently residing at Balotra,
District Barmer, but since the respondents are now temporarily
residing at Bhinmal, District Jalore, the jurisdiction of the Bhinmal
Court cannot be challenged.
In view of the above, no interference is called for in the
present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
In Criminal Transfer Petition No.13/2021:
Learned counsel for the petitioners harped that the
permanent residence of the respondents is at Balotra, and
therefore, the case could have been preferred there only.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the
submission.
This Court, on reading of Section 126(1) of Cr.P.C., finds that
the legislature has consciously used for the jurisdiction in regard
to filing of a case, the words, "Proceedings under Section 125 may
be taken against any person in any district- (b) where he or his
wife resides...".
The petitioner seeks to transfer the case from Bhinmal,
District Jalore to Balotra, District Barmer or Jodhpur on the ground
that the Bhinmal court does not have jurisdiction to try the case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents are not permanent residents of Bhinmal, District
(Downloaded on 30/03/2022 at 08:33:36 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLTP-14/2021]
Jalore, and therefore, the case filed in the Bhinmal court is not
maintainable.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
respondents are temporarily residing in Bhinmal, District Jalore,
and therefore, the Bhinmal Court has the jurisdiction to hear the
case.
Learned counsel for the respondents drew the attention of
this Court towards the judgments rendered in Jagir Kaur & Ors.
Vs. Jaswant Singh reported in AIR 1963 SC 1521; Mohd. Rasool
Vs. Rabbo & Anr. reported in AIR 1955 All 693; and Charan Das
Vs. Surasti Bai reported AIR 1940 Lah 449.
In the case of Jagir Kaur (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that the term "resides" as under Section 126 Cr.P.C. would
include both, a permanent as well as a temporary residence. And
that only such an interpretation would satisfy the purpose of the
said provision of law in the Statute.
In the case of Mohd. Rasool (supra), the Hon'ble Allahabad
High Court, when analyzing whether temporary residence was
sufficient for acquiring jurisdiction in a case of maintenance
between husband and wife, under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.,
1898, held that a temporary residence would suffice, and confer
jurisdiction upon the court.
In the case of Charan Das (supra), the Hon'ble Lahore High
Court held that although a casual visit to a particular place would
not confer jurisdiction upon the courts in that particular area, but
a temporarily residence, if extended to a period of two months or
more, would suffice in conferring jurisdiction to the courts in that
particular area.
(Downloaded on 30/03/2022 at 08:33:36 PM)
(5 of 5) [CRLTP-14/2021]
This Court finds that the temporary residence of the
respondents to be at Bhinmal, District Jalore thereby conferring
jurisdiction upon the learned court below to hear the case, and
therefore, no reason to transfer the case per the request of the
petitioner is made out. The language of the statute is crystal clear,
and is also substantiated by the judicial precedents cited above.
In view of the above, no interference is called for in the
present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
124-125 Zeeshan/(L)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
