NIKHIL RAJENDRA MORE AND OTHERS v. VISHAKHA NIKHIL MORE
D.V. Act Jurisdiction: 'Temporary Residence' Requires Proof of Intent to Reside, Not Mere Casual Stay for Filing a Case.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:1431-DB
Decision Date: 09-01-2026
List of Laws
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Territorial Jurisdiction; Animus Manendi
- Facts: The petitioners, relatives of Nikhil More, challenged the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar to entertain a complaint filed by Nikhil's wife, Vishakha, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act). Vishakha claimed temporary residence in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for educational purposes, while the petitioners argued she actually resided in Borda, Tq. Kalamb, based on her Aadhar card, previous complaints, and service of notices. The Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge rejected the petitioners' objection.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed a Criminal Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, which had upheld the Magistrate's decision to entertain the D.V. Act complaint. The High Court was thus reviewing the concurrent findings of the lower courts regarding jurisdiction.
- Issue: Did the Magistrate at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under the D.V. Act, considering the respondent's claim of temporary residence for educational purposes, and whether the term 'temporarily resides' under Section 27 of the D.V. Act includes a casual stay without a genuine intention to reside?
- Holding: No, the Magistrate at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar did not have jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the orders of the lower courts.
- Reasoning: The Court held that "temporary residence means a residence set up, or acquired in the ordinary course of human affairs and is not a residence set up with an intention to file a case and confer the jurisdiction upon a Magistrate to harass the relatives of the husband". The Court emphasized that the respondent failed to provide any concrete evidence, such as college admission documents, to support her claim of residing in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for educational purposes. The Court also relied on the principle of animus manendi, stating that the respondent did not demonstrate a clear intention to stay at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for an indefinite period. The Court noted the respondent's previous complaints and Aadhar card indicated residence elsewhere, and the summons were served at her permanent address. The Court observed a growing tendency among women to file cases far from their husband's residence to harass them and misuse the law.
🔒 For Members Only