Summary
The Supreme Court upheld Bengaluru’s territorial jurisdiction over a domestic-violence complaint because the aggrieved wife resided there with her parents. It nevertheless quashed proceedings against relatives numbered 3 to 13 for want of specific allegations connecting them to domestic violence. Proceedings against the husband and parents-in-law were directed to continue in accordance with law, without any opinion on the merits.
Issues
- Whether the wife’s residence with her parents conferred territorial jurisdiction in Bengaluru, and whether proceedings could continue against relatives without specific allegations.
Provisions considered
- Section 27(1)(a), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005The court where the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides has jurisdiction; the wife’s residence with her parents in Bengaluru satisfied that provision. (¶ 10)
Held
- Before notice issues, the court must be prima facie satisfied that domestic violence is alleged. There were allegations concerning jewellery and harassment against the husband and parents-in-law, but no specific allegations explaining domestic violence by appellants 3 to 13; proceedings against those relatives could not continue. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The wife’s residence with her parents within the Bengaluru Magistrate’s territorial limits conferred jurisdiction under Section 27(1)(a), notwithstanding the locations of the marriage and matrimonial home. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 quashed against appellants 3 to 13; Magistrate directed to proceed against appellants 1, 2 and 14 according to law. Merits expressly left undecided.