SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS versus PARIMALA
[2020] 1 S.C.R. 125, Supreme Court of India, 2020
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
125
SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS
v.
PARIMALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2020)
JANUARY 22, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 –
ss.27(1)(a) & 18-20 – Marriage of respondent-wife and appellant
no.14-husband was solemnized in Rajasthan – Respondent was
residing with appellant no.14 and his parents (appellant nos.1 & 2)
in her matrimonial house at Chennai – Appellant no.14 and
respondent went to Bengaluru to attend respondent’s sister’s wedding
– Respondent thereafter refused to join her matrimonial home and
inter alia sought protection order u/s.18, 2005 Act against appellant
nos.1, 2, 14 and their other relatives (appellant nos.3-13) who were
in Chennai, Rajasthan and Gujarat – Magistrate, Bengaluru issued
notice to the appellants – Appellants sought quashing of the
proceedings – Dismissed – On appeal, held: When acts of domestic
violence are alleged, before issuing notice, the court has to be prima
facie satisfied that there have been instances of domestic violence
– Admittedly, the matrimonial house was at Chennai – Respondent
made allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants–
Against appellant nos.1, 2 & 14, the averments of alleged domestic
violence were that they took away the jewellery of the respondent
gifted by her father during marriage and the alleged acts of
harassment to the respondent – There are no specific allegations as
to how other relatives of appellant
no.14 caused the acts of domestic
violence – High Court not right in saying that there was prima facie
case against appellant nos.3-13 – Criminal case of domestic
violence against them is quashed – Further, petition under the 2005
Act can be filed in a court where the “person aggrieved”
permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is
employed – Respondent is residing with her parents within the
territorial limits of Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru and
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 125
125
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
in view of s.27(1)(a), the said Court has jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the offence – Criminal case of domestic violence
against appellants nos.1, 2 & 14 be proceeded with and disposed
of in accordance with law – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.9 –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005
relates to protection order. In terms of Section 18 of the Act,
intention of the legislature is to provide more protection to
woman. Section 20 of the Act empowers the court to order for
monetary relief to the “aggrieved party”. When acts of domestic
violence is alleged, before issuing notice, the court has to be
prima facie satisfied that there have been instances of domestic
violence. The respondent made allegations of domestic violence
against fourteen appellants.  Appellant No.14 is the husband and
appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent.
All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of the
respondent.  Admittedly, the matrimonial house has been at
Chennai. Insofar as appellant No.14-husband of the respondent
and appellants No.1 and 2-Parents-in-law, there are averments
of alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken away
the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father during
marriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent.
There are no specific allegations as to how
other relatives of
appellant No.14 have caused the acts of domestic violence. It is
also not known as to how other relatives who are residents of
Gujarat and Rajasthan can be held responsible for award of
monetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not right
in saying that there was prima facie case against the other
appellants No.3 to 13. The criminal case of domestic violence
against them is quashed. 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. 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
127
to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offence.
There is no merit in the contention raising objection as to the
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru.
Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 filed against the appellants No.3 to 13
is quashed. The VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at
Bengaluru shall proceed with Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 against
appellants No.1, 2 and 14 and dispose the same in accordance
with law. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed on
the merits of the matter. [Paras 8, 9 and 11] [129-D-H; 130-A-B;
G-H; 131-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 141 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated  18.02.2019 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 5959 of 2015.
Balaji Srinivasan, Ms. Lakshmi R. Rao, Ms. Pallavi Sen Gupta,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Nidhi, Vaisal Dathan, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated
18.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in
Criminal Petition No.5959 of 2015 in and by which the High Court has
dismissed the petition filed by the appellants stating that the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed
by the respondent under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (For short “Domestic Violence
Act”).
3. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows:-
The marriage of respondent-wife and appellant No.14-Manoj
Kumar was solemnized on 01.05.2006, as per Hindu rites and customs
in Rajasthan. After marriage, the respondent was residing with appellant
No.14 in her matrimonial house at Chennai along with appellants No.1
and 2 who are the parents of the appellant No.14. In April, 2014, appellant
No.14 and respondent-wife went to Bengaluru from Chennai to attend
respondent’s sister wedding. After the said wedding, the respondent
expressed her desire to remain at Bengaluru for some time; which was
SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS v. PARIMALA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
acceded to by appellant No.14 with the understanding that the respondent
would stay in her parent’s house for short time. According to the
appellants, the respondent thereafter refused to join her matrimonial home
or cohabit with appellant No.14.  Appellant No.14 filed O.P. No.11355
of 2015 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of
conjugal rights before the Family Court, Chennai. Thereafter, respondent
claiming herself to be a victim of domestic violence seeking protection
order under Section 18 and residence order under Section 19 and
monetary relief under Section 20 of the Act filed Crl. Misc. No.53 of
2015 before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru against
her husband- appellant No.14, her in-laws-appellant Nos.1 and 2 and
other relatives of her husband who are in Chennai, Rajasthan and also in
Gujarat. The learned Magistrate, Bengaluru vide order dated 16.04.2015
issued notice to the appellants by holding that the Court has the jurisdiction
to entertain the petition filed by the respondent under Section 27 of the
Domestic Violence Act.
4. Aggrieved by the issuance of summons in Crl. Misc. No.53 of
2015, the appellants have filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before
the High Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Crl. Misc.
No.53 of 2015 on the file of the MMTC-VI at Bengaluru. Vide the
impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the petition by holding
that in
the complaint filed by the respondent, various instances of domestic
violence at different places viz. Chennai, Rajasthan and Gujarat are
narrated by the respondent and therefore, the complaint filed in Bengaluru
is maintainable under Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act. Being
aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
5. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants contended that neither the marriage of the parties was
solemnized at Bengaluru nor the matrimonial house was at Bengaluru
and therefore, the Magistrate Court at Bengaluru has no jurisdiction to
entertain the petition filed under the Domestic Violence Act. Learned
counsel submitted that vague allegations have been levelled against the
family members of the husband-appellant No.14 which are not at all
substantiated. Learned counsel further submitted that with a view to
harass the family members of her husband, the respondent has arraigned
all the family members of her husband including those who are residents
in the State of Rajasthan, Gujarat and other relatives in Chennai and the
complaint is an abuse of the process of the Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
129
6. Ms. Nidhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has
contended that by virtue of Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act,
the place where the complainant permanently or temporarily resides or
carries on business, Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint
and grant protection order and other orders under the Domestic Violence
Act. It was submitted that the respondent is currently residing within the
territorial limit of the Metropolitan Magistrate of Bengaluru City and
that the High Court rightly held that the Metropolitan Magistrate at
Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Taking us through
the averments in the complaint, learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that there are several instances of domestic violence against
the husband-appellant No.14 and other relatives particularly, appellant
Nos.1 and 2-father-in-law and mother-in-law who have been harassing
the respondent who have taken away respondent’s jewellery and insisting
upon her to buy properties. The learned counsel submitted that the High
Court rightly refused to quash the order of taking cognizance.
7. We have carefully considered the contentions and perused the
impugned judgment and other materials on record.
8. Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act relates to protection
order.  In terms of Section 18 of the Act, intention of the legislature is to
provide more protection to woman.  Section 20 of the Act empowers the
court to order for
monetary relief to the “aggrieved party”.  When acts
of domestic violence is alleged, before issuing notice, the court has to be
prima facie satisfied that there have been instances of domestic violence.
9. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations of
domestic violence against fourteen appellants.  Appellant No.14 is the
husband and appellants No.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the
respondent.  All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of the
respondent.  Appellants No.3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are the brothers of father-
in-law of the respondent.  Appellants No.4, 6 and 10 are the wives of
appellants No.3, 5 and 9 respectively.  Appellants No.7 and 8 are the
parents of appellant No.1.  Appellants No.1 to 6 and 14 are residents of
Chennai.  Appellants No.7 to 10 are the residents of State of Rajasthan
and appellants No.11 to 13 are the residents of State of Gujarat.
Admittedly, the matrimonial house of the respondent and appellant No.1
has been at Chennai.  Insofar as appellant No.14-husband of the
respondent and appellants No.1 and 2-Parents-in-law, there are
averments of alleging domestic violence alleging that they have taken
SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS v. PARIMALA
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
away the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father during
marriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent. There
are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of appellant No.14
have caused the acts of domestic violence.  It is also not known as to
how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be
held responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent.  The
High Court was not right in saying that there was prima facie case
against the other appellants No.3 to 13.  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.
10. Insofar as the jurisdiction of the Bengaluru Court, as pointed
out by the High Court, Section 27 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 covers the situation.  Section 27 of the Act
reads 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 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.
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.  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.  There is no merit in the contention

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
131
raising objection as to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate
Court at Bengaluru.
11. In the result, Crl. Misc. No.53 of 2015 filed against the appellants
No.3 to 13 is quashed and this appeal is partly allowed. The learned VI
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru shall proceed with Crl.
Misc. No.53 of 2015 against appellants No.1, 2    and 14 and dispose the
same in accordance with law.  We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
Divya Pandey
Appeal partly allowed.
SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS v. PARIMALA
[R. BANUMATHI, J.]