Supreme Court Upholds Bengaluru Court’s Jurisdiction in Domestic Violence Case: Shyam Lal Devda vs. Parimala (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 22 January 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 46

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., A.S. Bopanna, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a woman file a domestic violence case in a city where she is temporarily residing, even if her matrimonial home is located elsewhere? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in the case of *Shyam Lal Devda and Others vs. Parimala*. The court examined whether the Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru had the jurisdiction to hear a case filed by a wife against her husband and in-laws, when the primary instances of alleged domestic violence occurred outside Bengaluru. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy, with Justice R. Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The respondent, Parimala, married Manoj Kumar (appellant No. 14) on May 1, 2006, in Rajasthan. After the marriage, Parimala lived with Manoj at his home in Chennai, along with his parents (appellants No. 1 and 2). In April 2014, Parimala and Manoj traveled to Bengaluru for her sister’s wedding. After the wedding, Parimala wanted to stay in Bengaluru for some time, and Manoj agreed, with the understanding that she would stay at her parents’ house temporarily. However, Parimala later refused to return to her matrimonial home in Chennai. Following this, Manoj filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in Chennai. Subsequently, Parimala filed a complaint in Bengaluru under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging domestic violence against her husband, in-laws, and other relatives.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru issued a notice to the appellants, stating that the court had jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act. Aggrieved by this, the appellants filed a petition in the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash the proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that since the respondent had narrated instances of domestic violence at different places, including Chennai, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, the complaint filed in Bengaluru was maintainable under Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which deals with jurisdiction. Section 27(1) states:

“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.”

The court also considered Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, which deals with protection orders, and Section 20 of the same Act, which empowers the court to order monetary relief to the aggrieved party.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the Magistrate Court in Bengaluru did not have jurisdiction because the marriage was not solemnized in Bengaluru, and neither was the matrimonial home located there.
• They contended that the allegations against the family members were vague and unsubstantiated, and that the respondent was using the complaint to harass her husband’s family.
• It was also argued that the respondent had included family members residing in Rajasthan, Gujarat, and other relatives in Chennai to harass them.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act allows a complaint to be filed in a court where the aggrieved person temporarily resides.
• She stated that she was residing within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate in Bengaluru.
• The respondent further contended that there were several instances of domestic violence against her by her husband and other relatives, particularly her in-laws, who had allegedly harassed her and taken her jewelry.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Bengaluru had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which specifies the jurisdiction of courts in domestic violence cases. The court also referred to Section 18 and 20 of the Act.

Authorities Considered

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to determine the jurisdiction of the court. It interpreted the provision to mean that a complaint can be filed where the aggrieved person temporarily resides. The Court also considered Section 18 and 20 of the Act to state the intention of the legislature to provide more protection to woman and empower the court to order for monetary relief to the “aggrieved party” respectively.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act. The court emphasized that the law intends to provide protection to women and that the provision allowing a complaint to be filed where the aggrieved person temporarily resides should be upheld. The court also considered the lack of specific allegations against appellants No. 3 to 13, which led to the quashing of proceedings against them.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretation rather than factual analysis, as indicated by the higher percentage for law.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Bengaluru had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the respondent. The court clarified that Section 27(1)(a) of the Domestic Violence Act allows a complaint to be filed where the aggrieved person temporarily resides. However, the court also noted that there were no specific allegations against appellants No. 3 to 13, and therefore, the criminal case against them was quashed. The court stated:

“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.”

The court further observed:

“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.”

The court also noted:

“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.”

The bench did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Takeaways

• A woman can file a domestic violence case in a court within whose jurisdiction she is temporarily residing, even if her matrimonial home is elsewhere.
• Specific allegations are necessary against each respondent in a domestic violence case. Vague allegations may lead to the quashing of proceedings against some respondents.
• The court’s interpretation of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act emphasizes the protection of women.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru to proceed with Crl. Misc. No. 53 of 2015 against appellants No. 1, 2, and 14 and dispose of the same in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, specifically regarding the jurisdiction of courts when the aggrieved person is temporarily residing in a different location from their matrimonial home. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to women under the Act and ensures that they have access to justice in locations where they are temporarily residing.

Conclusion

In *Shyam Lal Devda vs. Parimala*, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Bengaluru to hear a domestic violence case filed by a woman temporarily residing there. The court emphasized that Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act allows a complaint to be filed where the aggrieved person temporarily resides. However, the court also quashed proceedings against some family members due to the lack of specific allegations against them. This judgment clarifies the scope of jurisdiction in domestic violence cases and reinforces the protection of women under the Act.

Category

Parent Category: Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Child Category: Section 27, Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Child Category: Jurisdiction

FAQ

Q: Can I file a domestic violence case in a city where I am temporarily staying?

A: Yes, according to this Supreme Court judgment, you can file a domestic violence case in a court within whose jurisdiction you are temporarily residing, even if your matrimonial home is located elsewhere.

Q: What if I don’t have specific allegations against all the family members I want to include in the case?

A: The Supreme Court has clarified that you need to have specific allegations against each family member you include in the case. Vague allegations may lead to the quashing of proceedings against some of them.

Q: Does this judgment change the law regarding domestic violence cases?

A: This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, specifically regarding the jurisdiction of courts when the aggrieved person is temporarily residing in a different location from their matrimonial home. This ensures that women have access to justice in locations where they are temporarily residing.