IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.10873 of 2009 Between: Neeluru Pawan Kumar .. Petitioner AND Protection Officer/Projector Director, District Women and Child Development Agency, Ranga Reddy District rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: The criminal petition is directed against the further proceedings in D.V.C. No.29 of 2009 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally against the petitioner. 2. The domestic violence case was taken cognizance by the Magistrate on a domestic incident report from the protection officer on the complaint of the 2nd respondent herein dated 06-07-2009. The 2nd respondent, who was married to the petitioner on 20-04-2008, made various allegations about various acts of domestic violence by the respondents to the domestic violence case, who include her husband and parents-in-law during her marital life at Bangalore. While the 2nd respondent herein and the respondents to the domestic violence case were alleged to have lived in a shared household in a domestic relationship at Bangalore, only a telephonic conversation between the husband and wife on 02-07-2008 and a mediation on 30-08-2008 were claimed to have happened at Hyderabad. However, the marital discord has compelled the 2nd respondent herein to return to her parents at Hyderabad and by the time of giving the complaint to the protection officer, she was living in KPHB colony at Hyderabad and is continuing to reside there as of now. 3. The husband/1st respondent in the domestic violence case claims innocence in the present criminal petition and primarily challenges the continuance of the proceedings in the domestic violence case on the ground of the Protection Officer/Project Director of Ranga Reddy District and the trial Court having no jurisdiction to try the petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) on the own allegations of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner’s claim is that only the Courts at Bangalore have the jurisdiction and hence, the proceedings against him may be quashed. 4. Heard Smt. K. Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor/1st respondent and Sri S. Gnaneswara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Rambabu Sambangi, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 5. The only point that arises for consideration is the question of jurisdiction of the Court at Cyberabad and the Protection Officer of Ranga Reddy District to entertain the complaint of the 2nd respondent and initiate and prosecute the proceedings under the Act. 6. Point: Without going into the factual controversies, the residence of the 2nd respondent within the jurisdiction of the Protection Officer and the Court concerned by the time of her complaint to the Protection Officer and thereafter till now is not in dispute. Section 27 of the Act declares the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, within the local limits of which the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides, to be the competent Court to grant protection order and other orders under the Act and to try the offences under the Act. The plain and unambiguous language of the provision leaves nothing for imagination or interpretation and the domestic violence case cannot fail on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. 7. Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-12-2011 Svv