Hon'bleJudges/Coram:
R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy
Contentions raised by the Appellant
- After the respondent resided in her own house for a short period of time after marriage, the respondent refused to join her matrimonial home or cohabit with the appellant.
- The appellant filed for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife.
- The appellant filed for quashing the petition by the wife against domestic violence.
- 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.
- The counsel on behalf of the appellants contended that vague allegation had been levelled against the family members of the husband and she had the intention to harass the family members of the husband.
Contentions raised by the Respondent
- After marriage, the respondent decided to stay with her parents for while informing about the same to her husband.
- The wife contended that she was a victim of domestic violence. She made allegation of Domestic Violence against fourteen Appellants.
- It was contended that the family members of the husband and he himself have harassed the respondent for her jewellery and insisting to buy her properties.
Judgment
The court held that that in view of Section 27(1) of the DV Act, the Metropolitan Magistrate court, Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance of the offence and since allegation against the other appellants except the husband and appellants 1 and 2 is quashed since there were no specific allegations against them.
