Magistrate Can Pass Residence Order Under DV Act For House Outside His Territorial Limits: Madras High Court

The High Court held that only the place of the aggrieved person, the respondent or the cause of action is relevant for jurisdiction, and not the location of the residence covered by the order.

Update: 2026-11-13 12:00 GMT

The Madras High Court has held that a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is entitled to pass a residence order in respect of a house situated outside his territorial limits, since any order made under the Act is enforceable throughout India under Section 27(2).

The Court observed that for the purpose of jurisdiction, only the place where the aggrieved person or the respondent resides, carries on business or is employed, or where the cause of action has arisen, is relevant. The location of the house in respect of which the residence order is passed is not relevant.

The Court dismissed the revision petitions filed by a husband and his parents challenging a residence order passed by a Mahila Court in Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu, in respect of the matrimonial home in Bengaluru.

The Bench of Justice S. Sounthar observed, “A plain reading of that Section makes it clear that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is enforceable throughout India and therefore, he is entitled to grant residential order in respect of house or residence situated outside the territorial limits. For the purpose of defining the jurisdiction, only the place of the aggrieved party or place of the respondent or place of cause of action are relevant and the place of the residence in respect of which residential order is passed is not relevant.”

Advocate V. Paarthipan appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate T.S. Baskaran appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The wife, who was married in 2013, lived with her husband in the matrimonial home at Bengaluru. Alleging harassment and domestic violence, she filed a case before the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Krishnagiri against her husband and parents-in-law, seeking residence and protection orders.

The Magistrate held that she was entitled to a residence order in respect of the house at Bengaluru and passed a protection order restraining the husband and in-laws from harassing her by words and acts, under Sections 18 and 19 of the DV Act. Her prayer for maintenance was dismissed.

The appeals filed by the husband and in-laws were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. Aggrieved, they approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioners confined their arguments to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. They contended that since the house is situated at Bengaluru, outside the territorial limits of the Magistrate, the residence order was without jurisdiction.

The wife contended that under Section 27(2) of the DV Act, an order passed by the Magistrate is enforceable throughout India, and therefore there was no jurisdictional error.

Observations/Findings of the Court

Distinguishing Section 14 of the CrPC from Section 27 of the DV Act, the Court observed, "Section 14 of Criminal Procedure Code only defines the local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate. However, the Magistrate draws his power to pass protection order or other orders under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, only under Section 27 of Domestic Violence Act. In other words, Section 14 of Criminal Procedure Code only talks about the territorial limits of his jurisdiction whereas Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act talks about jurisdiction of the Magistrate as to subject matter namely his powers under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005."

The Court noted that under Section 27(1), the Magistrate can entertain a complaint and pass orders under the DV Act if the aggrieved person or the respondent resides, carries on business or is employed within his territorial limits, or if the cause of action has arisen there. Since the wife resided within the territorial limits of the Krishnagiri Magistrate, he had jurisdiction to entertain her complaint.

In light of the plain language of Section 27(2), the Court found no jurisdictional error or infirmity in the Magistrate’s order, repelled the petitioners’ submission and dismissed the revision petitions without costs.