In domestic violence, in absence of specific allegations, proceedings are liable to be quashed; SC.

Supreme Court of India

Justice R Banumathi, Justice A S Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy

The SC {SHYAMLAL DEVDA AND OTHERS v. PARIMALA} holds in present case, 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. But 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. It was held that 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.

It was further held that a plain reading of the above provision makes it clear that the petition under the DV Act can be filed in a court where the “person aggrieved” permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed. Further held, in the present case, the respondent is residing with her parents within the territorial limits of Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. In view of Sec27(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 raising objection as to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru.

According, in above terms, the appeal was disposed of by the SC.