Rajasthan High Court
Deepak Kumar Aswani vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 9 September, 2011
SB Criminal Revision Petition No.811/2010
Deepak Kumar Aswani Vs. State of Rajasthan & another
Date of order 9.9.2011
HON'BLE DR. MEENA V. GOMBER, J.
Mr. J.P. Gupta, for petitioner
Mr. Sanjeev Mehla, Addl. Govt. Advocate, for State
Mr. V.P. Yadav, for non petitioner no.2
The petitioner (complainant) has filed this revision petition against the order dated 11.5.2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No.165/2010 whereby petitioner's appeal had been dismissed and the order of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ajmer dated 16.4.2010, rejecting his application under Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter to be referred as 'the Act'), had been upheld.
Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that non petitioner no.2, wife of the petitioner, filed a complaint under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, stating herself to be resident of Delhi Gate, Ajmer, claiming stridhan, right to residence, maintenance and compensation, which came to be transferred before the Judicial Magistrate No.1 Ajmer.
During pendency of the Criminal Case no.242/2009 titled as Smt. Deepa v. Deepak Kumar & others, the petitioner filed an application under Section 27 of the Act stating therein that so as to create jurisdiction of the Court at Ajmer, the complainant wife filed fictitious address of Ajmer, whereas she is resident of 12-D Lal Bag,
- 2 -
Radhanpur District Patan (Gujarat), and has never resided at Ajmer permanently or even temporarily or conducted any business or work at Ajmer. His contention was that her complaint deserved to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction alone.
Opposing the application, non petitioner (wife) contended that her father Mr. Bhagwan Das Mulani, was a bona fide resident of Ajmer and house No.3/266, Delhi Gate, Ajmer was their ancestral house, where they lived even at the time of her marriage and that her father lives in Radhanpur (Gujarat) in connection with his business.
So far as other facts of the main petition are concerned, they are not subject matter of this revision petition, therefore, the facts relevant for the purpose of application under Section 27 of the Act, are being looked into.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the non petitioner and have perused the record and the order impugned. The main grievance of the petitioner was that there were various documents showing that the non petitioner Smt. Deepa was living with her father permanently in Gujarat and that she had never even temporarily, lived in Ajmer and, therefore, the court at Ajmer had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by her under the provisions of the Act.
As per Section 27 of the Act, the aggrieved person can file a complaint even from her temporary address. Section 27 of the Act reads as under :-
- 3 -
(1) 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.
(2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.
The learned trial court, as also the appellate court has elaborately discussed the documentary evidence with regard to the address of non petitioner no.1, in particular the legal notice sent to non petitioner by the petitioner himself on 14.4.2009 at the address house no.3/266, Delhi Gate, Ajmer, through his counsel. Learned Judge has observed that this act of the petitioner itself shows that he also admits non petitioner and her father residing at house no.3/266, Delhi Gate, Ajmer, though temporarily. It has also come on record that house no.3/266, Delhi Gate, Ajmer, is ancestral house of her father, wherein she is living in the portion of her father and that her father's brother also lives in his portion. The Legislature in its wisdom has, while enacting this beneficial legislation, which has been brought into effect for the convenience of the aggrieved women, has provided Section 27, which gives jurisdiction to entertain the
- 4 -
complaints of aggrieved women filed under this Act, even if they reside within its jurisdiction temporarily. Learned Appellate Court has arrived at a conclusion and rightly so, that there is nothing on record to show that Judicial Magistrate at Ajmer had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Admittedly, the petitioner also belongs to Ajmer district and if at all the non petitioner had to harass him, she, instead of filing the complaint at Ajmer, could have filed at Gujarat also. Since the petitioner is also a resident of Ajmer district, therefore, it cannot be said that any inconvenience is caused to him. Learned trial court as also the learned appellate court has discussed all the aspects of the matter.
In my considered view, looking to the totality of the circumstances, in particular the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, it cannot be said that the order impugned, passed by the Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, warrant any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
(Dr. Meena V. Gomber) J.