Did the complaint clearly state when and where the alleged violence happened? Or did the court find the entire foundation too weak to proceed?
The Mahila Court at Karkardooma returned a Domestic Violence petition after questioning about how such cases are filed and sustained.
NEW DELHI: In a recent order, a Mahila Court in East District, Delhi, examined a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act). The matter primarily revolved around whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the case and whether the pleadings disclosed any clear cause of action.
At the very beginning, the court recorded that the respondent’s counsel raised a strong objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It was clearly argued that the court had no authority to try the case and that this issue must be decided first before moving ahead.
The objection was based on the address mentioned in the complaint. It was pointed out that the property did not fall within the limits of the police station under which this court exercises jurisdiction.
The argument was simple and legally sound: proceedings conducted without proper territorial jurisdiction are null and void. The court rightly treated this issue as fundamental.
The other side argued that the petitioner had lived at another address in Delhi and that part of the cause of action arose there. Section 27 of the PWDV Act was relied upon to claim jurisdiction.
However, when the court examined the record and called for the SHO’s report, the factual position did not support that claim. The SHO clarified that the properties mentioned did not fall within the jurisdiction claimed.
More importantly, the court did not ignore the quality of the allegations. It is clearly recorded that:
“The court finds that the petitioner’s submissions and pleadings are vague and general in nature as no date of incident has been provided by her in her petition under Section 12 of PWDV Act.”
The court further observed that:
“The material on record is grossly insufficient for even prima facie showing that the alleged acts of domestic violence were committed.”
Even regarding the alternate address, the court made it clear:
“Her pleadings do not reveal any specific incident of domestic violence which allegedly took place in the Gandhi Nagar house. Thus, no cause of action can be stated to have arisen in the Gandhi Nagar house.”
The record also showed that the respondent had already challenged jurisdiction earlier through a proper application. The court acknowledged that the issue was already under consideration before the appellate court and that the respondent could not be stopped from contesting jurisdiction before the trial court.
Finally, after considering the SHO report and the pleadings, the court held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. The petition was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the proper court. The court also noted that no application under Order VII Rule 10A of the CPC was filed, despite knowledge of the order.
This order reinforces two essential safeguards: jurisdiction must be legally established, and allegations must be specific and supported by material particulars. Vague pleadings and forum selection tactics cannot replace evidence or create jurisdiction where none exists.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | Allows filing of a domestic violence complaint seeking reliefs | |
| Section 12 PWDV Act | A complaint was filed under this provision but the pleadings were held vague and lacking incident details. | Invoked to justify jurisdiction, but the SHO report showed addresses did not fall within the jurisdiction. | |
| Section 27 PWDV Act | Defines territorial jurisdiction based on residence or cause of action | Permits the return of the plaintiff when the court lacks jurisdiction | |
| Order VII Rule 10 CPC | A complaint was filed under this provision, but the pleadings were held vague and lacking incident details. | The court returned the petition for presentation before the proper court | |
| Order VII Rule 10A CPC | The court noted no application was filed under this provision | Court noted no application was filed under this provision | |
Case Details
- Case Title: Wife Vs. Husband and Ors.
- Case No.: DV Complaint under Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- Court: Mahila Court-01, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
- Presiding Officer: Rishika Srivastava, JMFC, Mahila Court-01 East District, KKD Courts, Delhi
- Date of Order: 13 May 2025
- Subsequent Order: 16 May 2025
- Counsels:
- For Petitioner: Ld. Counsel Sh. R.R. Sarwal
- For Respondent: Ld. Counsels Sh. N.K. Rathi and Sh. Vikas Sharma
Key Takeaways
- Jurisdiction is not optional. A case cannot proceed in a court that has no legal authority over the area concerned.
- Allegations without dates, details, and specific incidents cannot automatically create a prima facie case.
- Simply mentioning an address does not establish a cause of action unless a clear incident is linked to that place.
- Men have the right to challenge the maintainability of proceedings at the very beginning, including territorial competence.
- Legal proceedings must be based on facts and evidence, not on broad, unsupported accusations.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.