Criminal Misc. No. M-28388 of 2011(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-28388 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 01, 2011 Manoj Kumar ... Petitioner Versus Jyoti and others ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This husband's revision is directed against the judgment dated July 08 th, 2011 (Annexure P1) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, affirming the order dated November 25 th, 2010 (Annexure P2) of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sonepat, whereby, application (Annexure P6) of the petitioner to dismiss the complaint of the wife (respondent herein) filed by her under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein for short `the Act'), was dismissed. 2. The solitary submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the court at Sonepat has no jurisdiction to try the complaint, because the complainant – respondent is permanent resident of Delhi and, as such, it should have been dismissed. 3. The submission is not tenable in view of Section 27 of the Act. For facilitation, the same is reproduced as under:- “27. Jurisdiction. - (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 Criminal Misc. No. M-28388 of 2011(O&M) [2] 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.” 4. A plain reading of clause (a), quoted above, provides that Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class has the jurisdiction, if the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed, within its local limits. It is not in dispute that respondent – wife is an employee in District Courts at Sonepat. Not only that, during the proceedings, petitioner placed on record photocopy of the summons in case titled `Savitri vs. Manoj Kumar', wherein, petitioner was the plaintiff and the complainant/respondent wife was defendant, and her address given was of Sonepat. 5. In view of above, it is unhesitatingly held that court at Sonepat has the jurisdiction to try the complaint. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed. November 01, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE