Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 21:51:04 stated to have taken place while the parties were residing in Ontario, Canada.

6.2. The DV Act does not contemplate extra-territorial operation. Section 1(2) read with Section 27(2) limits the DV Act's applicability to the territory of India. Consequently, the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under the DV Act is confined to incidents occurring within Indian territory. Neither Cr.P.C nor BNSS, which governs the proceedings under the DV Act by virtue of Section 28(1), confer any sovereign authority upon Magistrates to adjudicate on incidents of domestic violence alleged to have occurred beyond India. 6.3. Although proceedings under the DV Act are essentially civil in nature, they are conducted before a criminal court within the statutory framework of the Act. In such circumstances, particularly in view of Section 28 of the DV Act, which mandates that proceedings be governed by the provisions of the Cr.P.C, a complaint relating to incidents alleged to have occurred outside India, cannot be entertained de hors the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/08/2025 at 21:51:04 violence alleged to have committed. This framework would be rendered meaningless if domestic violence complaints are entertained for incidents which have occurred beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate. 6.5. Section 28 of the DV Act, when read in conjunction with Section 188 Cr.P.C, makes it evident that proceedings must pertain to incidents of domestic violence occurring within the jurisdiction of the Court seized of the application. This is further reinforced by Section 1(2) of the DV Act, which categorically states that the Act extends to the whole of India, thereby excluding acts occurring outside the territorial limits of India. 6.6. The Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 have already obtained a decree of divorce from the Canadian courts. In those proceedings, Respondent No. 1 unequivocally stated that no acts of domestic violence were committed by the Petitioner. Having taken such a position under oath before the competent Canadian forum, Respondent No. 1 is estopped from pursuing contrary allegations before the Magistrate under the DV Act.

(2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India."

11. Section 27 of the DV Act makes explicit that jurisdiction of the Magistrate is not confined to the situs of the cause of action, which is the incidence of domestic violence. Three independent and disjunctive bases are provided: (a) the place where the aggrieved person resides (permanently or temporarily), carries on business, or is employed; (b) the place where the respondent resides, carries on business, or is employed; and (c) the place where the cause of action arises. Importantly, Section 27(1)(a) allows jurisdiction to be invoked solely on the ground of the aggrieved person's residence, even temporary, independent of the cause of action. Thus, while the cause of action certainly constitutes one ground to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, that is de hors the other ground contemplated under Section 27(1)(a) of the DV Act, namely, the residence of the aggrieved person.

14. The Court also finds it apposite to address the argument premised on Section 188 Cr.P.C. Section 188 provides that when an offence is committed outside India by a citizen of India, such person may be dealt with in India as if the offence had been committed within India, subject to prior sanction of the Central Government. However, this provision is embedded within the framework of criminal trials and prosecutions. The reliefs contemplated under the DV Act, though enforceable through the criminal process, are largely civil in nature, directed at protection and welfare of the aggrieved person. The jurisdictional clause under Section 27 of the DV Act, being a special statutory provision, is therefore determinative of jurisdiction in such matters, and operates independently of the requirement of sanction under Section 188 Cr.P.C. To hold otherwise would unduly restrict the remedial scope of the DV Act and frustrate the very objective for which it was enacted.