A DV case can be filed by the wife as per section 27 of the DV act

Here is section 27 of the DV act

 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 this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.

Now many wife these days misuse either temporary resides or cause of action has arisen

Now I explain with an example and later with the case law…

In one of my case wife alleged that when she was travelling at the airport to Delhi. She was harassed mentally by husband at the airport.

She filed complaint in Delhi as she claimed that the cause of action arose in Delhi.

The trial court dismissed her complaint as the cause of action is engineered one

To support this the latest Judgement of Bombay High Court

Afia Rasheed Khan vs. Mazharuddin ali khan and ors comes to rescue.

Here also wife claimed that she has been living in Hyderabad with in laws and forced to travel to Mumbai. Where she claims that she was harrassed by the in laws and survallence was put on her. her counsel claims cause of action.

Court Held :Thus, averments in application suggest, that Applicant is well educated person; she
is financially sound; her parents are in business. In consideration of her background it
is difficult to accept her contention or that she could not seek protection order at
Hyderabad. In other words, application in no way suggest or implies that she was
forced to leave the Hyderabad and or she was intending to reside in Mumbai. On the
contrary the chronology of the events do suggest, that the Applicant engineered the
cause of action with an intention to file case and confer jurisdiction

Dismissed wife contention

My recent Experience at Patiala house court….

In this case wife filed a case of DV in Delhi while she was a resident of Gurgaon and had matrimonial home at noida.

She created a cause of action in Delhi that his husband did domestic violence at Delhi and therefor court should entertain the petition.

On the other hand we argue on the lines if wife comes for shopping to Delhi and there the incident happens then everyone will be file cases in Delhi. We argued on the line s that cause of action is seen from the bundle of facts and not the facts which leads to forum shopping like a person visiting Delhi and alleging domestic violence which is not permissible under the law.

There is no doubt that Section 27 being a jurisdictional clause in a bencficial legislation, it must receive a liberal construction. (Ram Lakhan Singh v. Union of India 2013 SCC Online Del 4844) However, unlike under Section 20 P C where it is sufficient that cause of action has arisen wholly or in part, under Section 27, the Court must find that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court. Under the act. a court must look at the fact asserted to be the basis of jurisdiction in relation to the whole bundle of acts that constitutes the cause of action.

SO a single incidence do not constitute cause of action and whole bundle of facts needs to be looked.

Nitish Banka

Nitish Banka is an advocate practicing in Supreme Court of India and can be reached at [email protected] or 9891549997