REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.    141     OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4979 of 2019)

SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS                     …..Appellants

VERSUS

PARIMALA                                                   …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  arises  out  of  the  impugned  judgment  dated

18.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in

Criminal Petition No.5959 of 2015 in and by which the High Court

has dismissed the petition filed by the appellants stating that the

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain

the complaint filed by the respondent under Sections 18, 19 and 20

of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (For

short “Domestic Violence Act”).

1

3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:-

The marriage of respondent-wife and appellant No.14-Manoj

Kumar  was  solemnized  on  01.05.2006,  as  per  Hindu  rites  and

customs in Rajasthan. After marriage, the respondent was residing

with appellant No.14 in her matrimonial house at Chennai along with

appellants No.1 and 2 who are the parents of the appellant No.14.

In  April,  2014,  appellant  No.14  and  respondent-wife  went  to

Bengaluru  from  Chennai  to  attend  respondent’s  sister  wedding.

After  the  said  wedding,  the  respondent  expressed  her  desire  to

remain  at  Bengaluru  for  some  time;  which  was  acceded  to  by

appellant No.14 with the understanding that the respondent would

stay  in  her  parent’s  house  for  short  time.  According  to  the

appellants, the respondent thereafter refused to join her matrimonial

home or cohabit with appellant No.14.  Appellant No.14 filed O.P.

No.11355 of 2015 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for

restitution  of  conjugal  rights  before  the  Family  Court,  Chennai.

Thereafter, respondent claiming herself to be a victim of domestic

violence seeking protection order under Section 18 and residence

order under Section 19 and monetary relief under Section 20 of the

Act filed Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 before the Court of Metropolitan

Magistrate at Bengaluru against her husband- appellant No.14, her

in-laws-appellant Nos.1 and 2 and other relatives of her husband

2

who are in Chennai,  Rajasthan and also in Gujarat.  The learned

Magistrate, Bengaluru vide order dated 16.04.2015 issued notice to

the  appellants  by  holding  that  the  Court  has  the  jurisdiction  to

entertain the petition filed by the respondent under Section 27 of the

Domestic Violence Act.

4. Aggrieved by the issuance of summons in Crl. Misc. No.53 of

2015, the appellants have filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

before the High Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in

Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 on the file of the MMTC-VI at Bengaluru.

Vide the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the petition

by holding that  in  the complaint  filed by the respondent,  various

instances  of  domestic  violence  at  different  places  viz.  Chennai,

Rajasthan  and  Gujarat  are  narrated  by  the  respondent  and

therefore,  the complaint  filed  in  Bengaluru  is  maintainable  under

Section  27  of  the  Domestic  Violence  Act.  Being  aggrieved,  the

appellants have preferred this appeal.

5. Mr.  Balaji  Srinivasan,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

appellants contended that neither the marriage of the parties was

solemnized  at  Bengaluru  nor  the  matrimonial  house  was  at

Bengaluru and therefore, the Magistrate Court at Bengaluru has no

jurisdiction  to  entertain  the  petition  filed  under  the  Domestic

3

Violence  Act.  Learned  counsel  submitted  that  vague  allegations

have been levelled against  the family  members of  the husband-

appellant No.14 which are not at all substantiated. Learned counsel

further submitted that with a view to harass the family members of

her husband, the respondent has arraigned all the family members

of her husband including those who are residents in the State of

Rajasthan, Gujarat and other relatives in Chennai and the complaint

is an abuse of the process of the Court.

6. Ms. Nidhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has

contended that by virtue of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act,

the place where the complainant permanently or temporarily resides

or carries on business, Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint  and grant  protection order  and other  orders under  the

Domestic  Violence  Act.  It  was  submitted  that  the  respondent  is

currently  residing  within  the  territorial  limit  of  the  Metropolitan

Magistrate of Bengaluru City and that the High Court rightly held

that the Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to

entertain  the  complaint.  Taking  us  through the  averments  in  the

complaint,  learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that

there  are  several  instances  of  domestic  violence  against  the

husband-appellant No.14 and other relatives particularly, appellant

4

Nos.1  and  2-father-in-law  and  mother-in-law  who  have  been

harassing  the  respondent  who  have  taken  away  respondent’s

jewellery  and  insisting  upon  her  to  buy  properties.  The  learned

counsel submitted that the High Court rightly refused to quash the

order of taking cognizance.

7. We have carefully  considered the contentions and perused

the impugned judgment and other materials on record.

8. Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act relates to protection

order.  In terms of Section 18 of the Act, intention of the legislature

is  to  provide  more  protection  to  woman.   Section  20  of  the  Act

empowers the court to order for monetary relief to the “aggrieved

party”.  When acts of domestic violence is alleged, before issuing

notice, the court has to be prima facie satisfied that there have been

instances of domestic violence.

9. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations of

domestic violence against fourteen appellants.  Appellant No.14 is

the husband and appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of

the respondent.  All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law

of  the  respondent.   Appellants  No.3,  5,  9,  11  and  12  are  the

brothers of father-in-law of the respondent.  Appellants No.4, 6 and

10  are  the  wives  of  appellants  No.3,  5  and  9  respectively.

5

Appellants No.7 and 8 are the parents of appellant No.1.  Appellants

No.1 to 6 and 14 are residents of Chennai.  Appellants No.7 to 10

are the residents of State of Rajasthan and appellants No.11 to 13

are the residents of  State of  Gujarat.  Admittedly,  the matrimonial

house of the respondent and appellant No.1 has been at Chennai.

Insofar  as  appellant  No.14-husband  of  the  respondent  and

appellants  No.1  and  2-Parents-in-law,  there  are  averments  of

alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken away the

jewellery  of  the  respondent  gifted  to  her  by  her  father  during

marriage and the alleged acts  of  harassment  to  the respondent.

There  are  no  specific  allegations  as  to  how  other  relatives  of

appellant No.14 have caused the acts of domestic violence.  It is

also  not  known  as  to  how  other  relatives  who  are  residents  of

Gujarat  and  Rajasthan  can  be  held  responsible  for  award  of

monetary relief to the respondent.  The High Court was not right in

saying that there was prima facie case against the other appellants

No.3  to  13.   Since  there  are  no  specific  allegations  against

appellants  No.3  to  13,  the  criminal  case  of  domestic  violence

against them cannot be continued and is liable to be quashed.

10. Insofar as the jurisdiction of the Bengaluru Court, as pointed

out by the High Court, Section 27 of the Protection of Women from

6

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 covers the situation.  Section 27 of the

Act 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 under this Act shall  be enforceable throughout

India.  

A plain  reading  of  the  above  provision  makes  it  clear  that  the

petition  under  the Domestic  Violence Act  can be filed  in  a court

where the “person aggrieved” permanently or temporarily resides or

carries  on  business  or  is  employed.   In  the  present  case,  the

respondent is residing with her parents within the territorial limits of

Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.  In view of Section 27(1)

(a) of the Act, the Metropolitan Magistrate court, Bengaluru has the

jurisdiction to entertain the complaint  and take cognizance of the

offence.  There is no merit in the contention raising objection as to

the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru.

7

11. In  the  result,  Crl.  Misc.  No.53  of  2015  filed  against  the

appellants No.3 to 13 is quashed and this appeal is partly allowed.

The learned VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru shall

proceed with Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 against appellants No.1, 2

and 14 and dispose the same in accordance with law.  We make it

clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the

matter.

..…………………….J.       [R. BANUMATHI]

..…………………….J.        [A.S. BOPANNA]

……………………….J.        [HRISHIKESH ROY]

New Delhi; January 22, 2020.

8