SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS versus PARIMALA

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 125 · Decided: 22-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
125
SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS
v.
PARIMALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2020)
JANUARY 22, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 –
ss.27(1)(a) & 18-20 – Marriage of respondent-wife and appellant
no.14-husband was solemnized in Rajasthan – Respondent was
residing with appellant no.14 and his parents (appellant nos.1 & 2)
in her matrimonial house at Chennai – Appellant no.14 and
respondent went to Bengaluru to attend respondent’s sister’s wedding
– Respondent thereafter refused to join her matrimonial home and
inter alia sought protection order u/s.18, 2005 Act against appellant
nos.1, 2, 14 and their other relatives (appellant nos.3-13) who were
in Chennai, Rajasthan and Gujarat – Magistrate, Bengaluru issued
notice to the appellants – Appellants sought quashing of the
proceedings – Dismissed – On appeal, held: When acts of domestic
violence are alleged, before issuing notice, the court has to be prima
facie satisfied that there have been instances of domestic violence
– Admittedly, the matrimonial house was at Chennai – Respondent
made allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants–
Against appellant nos.1, 2 & 14, the averments of alleged domestic
violence were that they took away the jewellery of the respondent
gifted 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 caused the acts of domestic
violence – High Court not right in saying that there was prima facie
case against appellant nos.3-13 – Criminal case of domestic
violence against them is quashed – Further, petition under the 2005
Act can be filed in a court where the “person aggrieved”
permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is
employed – Respondent is residing with her parents within the
territorial limits of Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru and
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 125
125
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
in view of s.27(1)(a), the said Court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the offence – Criminal case of domestic violence
against appellants nos.1, 2 & 14 be proceeded with and disposed
of in accordance with law – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.9 –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005
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. The respondent 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.  Admittedly, the matrimonial house 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. The criminal case of domestic violence
against them is quashed. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
127
to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offence.
There is no merit in the contention raising objection as to the
jurisdiction of t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.