The Bombay High Court in the case S v. H observed and has held that the judicial magistrate in India can take cognizance of domestic violence as the same is being committed in foreign soil under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Nagpur bench headed by Justice GA Sanap in the case observed that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a social beneficial legislation and that the lawmakers worded section 27 of the Act, wherein keeping in mind possible domestic violence outside India.
Therefore, the court observed in the case that the law makers were being mindful of such a situation and therefore, Section 27 of the Act have been worded in the said form. Thus, the same goes without saying that though the Domestic Violence Act extend to the whole of India as it is provided under Section 1 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the domestic violence is being caused on the foreign soil could also be taken cognizance by invoking Section 27 (1) (a) and (b).
The court in the case observed and has rejected the application moved by a man, wherein seeking dismissal of proceedings against him in Nagpur, where his wife is residing with her parents, for alleged committed domestic in Germany.
In the present case, the couple got married in the year 2020 and after the end of the year, the husband left for Germany. Further, it has also been alleged by the wife that during her stay with her in-laws in Mumbai, they humiliated and has insulted her, and has also made nasty comments about her and her parents.
Further, the wife left Germany and started living with her parents in Nagpur wherein she filed a domestic violence complaint against her husband. Thus, the application was filed by the husband for dismissal of the complaint.
Thus, the application made by the husband was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Aggrieved with the same, the Husband approached the High Court.
It has also been submitted by the husband in the case that the Domestic Violence Act extends to the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir as it is stated under section 1. Indian courts do not have jurisdiction over alleged committed domestic violence on German soil as the Act and the same does not extend to Indian subjects residing abroad.
The court observed that it has been stated under section 27(2) of the DV Act, an order is enforceable throughout India. It has also been argued by the husband that even if an order is passed, it would be meaningless since it cannot be executed outside India.
Further, it has been stated under Section 27(1)(a) of the Act that the magistrate has jurisdiction if the aggrieved person being the temporary and permanent resident or carries on business or is employed within its local limits.
In the said case, it has also been opined by the court that a harmonious construction of these two clauses along with section 27(1) would show that the lawmakers worded the said section while keeping in mind such a situation.
The court in the case also relied on Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that the wife suffering at her parental home due to cruelty in her matrimonial home would amount to distinct offences being committed at parental home.
Further, the court in the case held that the husband’s reliance of Section 27(2) is being misplaced wherein the question of execution would arise as it depends upon the nature of the order passed by the magistrate.
Accordingly, the court upheld the order passed by magistrate wherein rejecting the application of husband for dismissal of complaint.
