February 04, 2019
Case name: Ajay Kaul & ors. v. State of J&K
The case of the Petitioner husband was that the Lower Court has passed order of accommodation under Section 12 of the J&K Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2010 in shared house is situated at Noida to which Magistrate has no power as it is situated outside territory of State and where provisions of Act are not applicable. Here it would be relevant to mention that the marriage between the parties had solemnized at Udhampur, J&K and alleged acts of domestic violence had been committed on the Respondent wife in Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in view of the prevailing law and facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the petition to be devoid of any merits and made the following observations in the case:
- With reference to the Petitioner’s plea with regard to territorial jurisdiction of CJM Udhampur to pass residence order, the Court made reference to Section 27 of Act dealing with the Jurisdictional power of the Magistrate and opined that according to the statutory provision only such courts are competent to entertain a complaint where the aggrieved person/respondent permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed, or where cause of action arises.
- The Court further observed that merely on account of the fact that the respondent wife is temporarily residing with her parents at Udhampur, the court at Udhampur would not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
- While elucidating on the expression “temporarily resides” used in Section 27, the High Court remarked that it means more than a causal stay and implies some concrete intention to stay at a particular place. The temporary residence means where an aggrieved person is compelled to take shelter or to take job or do some business, in view of domestic violence within her matrimonial home. Temporary residence so includes a place where an aggrieved person was compelled to reside in view of commission of domestic violence.
Thus, the High Court in the case held that there is nothing which debars the magistrate to pass such order with regard to property situated outside State.
The entire case can be accessed here.