Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur comprising Justice GA Sanap has recently held that an Indian court can take cognizance of a domestic violence case under Domestic Violence Act 2005 even if the offence is committed on foreign soil.

“It, therefore, goes without saying that though the Domestic Violence Act extends to the whole of India as provided under Section 1 of the D.V. Act, the domestic violence caused on foreign soil could also be taken cognizance by invoking Section 27 (1) (a) and (b),” the court noted

The high court was hearing an appeal filed against the order of the magistrate court rejecting the application of the husband who contended that the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain a domestic violence complaint as it had allegedly occurred outside India.

The wife had claimed that during her stay with her in-laws in her matrimonial home at Mumbai, they used to make nasty, humiliating, and insulting comments about the complainant and her parents. Further, it was claimed that the in-laws told the wife the marriage was not performed as per their expectation and befitting their status.

After the marriage, the husband and the wife had moved to Germany.

The wife claimed that in Germany the husband subjected her to mental and physical torture. She was not allowed to talk with her parents and was forced to do extra household work. The wife alleged that she was forced to undergo an abortion against her wish and suffered mental and physical torture. Ultimately, the wife was forced to leave Germany and come back to Nagpur. The wife resided with her parents and filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, of 2005.

While the husband sought dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it was committed outside India, the wife argued that the mental stress and trauma carried by her from Germany continued in India and therefore, the complaint was maintainable under Section 27 of the DV Act. However, the magistrate court rejected the plea of the husband.

The high court in its order said that Section 27 will have to be harmoniously constructed.

“It is to be noted that subsection 1 and Section 27 of the D.V. Act will have to be harmoniously construed. The D.V. Act is a social beneficial legislation. The object and intention of the legislature behind this enactment is writ large from the statement of the object and reasons of the Act,” the court noted.

The bench said that Section 27 of the Act which empowers a magistrate to entertain an application under the Act is applicable irrespective of the place of cause of action and that there is no direct nexus or co-relation with the place where the domestic violence was actually caused.

Therefore, the high court while rejecting the application of the husband said that the lawmakers were mindful of such a situation where an offence might be committed outside India and therefore, worded Section 27 in such a form.

“In my view, these two clauses namely (a) and (b) of sub section (1) of Section 27 have to be harmoniously construed with sub section 1 of Section 27 of the Act. If it is so done then it would show that the law makers were mindful of such a situation and therefore, Section 27 have been worded in this form,” the high court observed.

Case title: XYZ vs ABC