9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of the court under Section 27 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 based on the temporary residence of the aggrieved person. Summary: The petitioner sought to quash an order dismissing the revision petition against a complaint under Section 12 of the Act. The contention was that the incidents of domestic violence occurred in Lucknow, not Delhi, where the complaint was lodged. The Sessions Judge noted the lack of precedents on the issue and left it open for evidence to decide if the wife's temporary residence in Delhi conferred jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that Delhi court lacked jurisdiction due to no incidents in Delhi. The interpretation of Section 27 of the Act was crucial, allowing jurisdiction based on temporary residence. The Domestic Violence Act empowers aggrieved persons to seek various reliefs. The Act outlines the duties of protection officers, service providers, and police to assist victims and prevent further violence. The Act allows jurisdiction based on the temporary residence of the aggrieved person, intended for those forced to seek shelter due to domestic violence. The Act emphasizes the importance of the place of domestic violence and the respondent's location for court jurisdiction. The Act's provisions aim to provide support and redressal to victims through various services and orders. The court analyzed the concept of temporary residence under the Act, emphasizing that it must be a place where the aggrieved person seeks shelter due to domestic violence, not a temporary stay for legal purposes. The temporary residence should be continuous until the case is resolved, not a fleeting arrangement for litigation purposes. In the case at hand, the aggrieved person residing with her sister was considered to have a genuine temporary residence, not established solely for legal proceedings. Thus, the petition was dismissed as the temporary residence with her sister was deemed valid under the Act.
|
