A Khanna court dismissed an NRI wife’s domestic violence case after finding she lived in Australia, not Khanna. The verdict reinforces how false or mis-filed cases misuse the system and drain husbands’ time and money.
PUNJAB: A recent order from the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna, has once again highlighted how domestic violence complaints are often filed in wrong jurisdictions, causing unnecessary pressure on men and their families.
In this case XXX vs. YYY (COMA-12-2024), the court clearly stated that the complaint could not continue because the wife did not live – either temporarily or permanently – at the Indian address mentioned in the case.
The husband, who secured this major relief, was represented by Tripaksha Litigation, led by Partner Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate.
The husband (respondent no.1) had filed an application saying the complaint was not maintainable because the wife did not stay in Khanna. He requested the court to reject the case. The wife opposed this and said she used to visit Khanna sometimes, and because of that, the “cause of action” existed there.
After hearing both sides, the court went deep into the facts. The complaint was filed by the wife through her attorney Bhushan Kumar Mittal, and she herself admitted that she was living in Australia at:
Unit No.1, 207, Charman Road, Cheltenham, 3192, Melbourne, Australia.
She also stated that she and her husband were married on 6.9.2008 and had stayed in Tarn Taran, then shifted to Greater Noida, and finally moved permanently to Australia in 2019. Even at present, both parties were living abroad.
From these facts, the court concluded that no part of the domestic-violence incident happened in Khanna, nor did the wife stay there. Under Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a case can only be filed where the aggrieved person resides, works, or where the cause of action arises.
Here, none of these conditions were met.
Therefore, the court said it had no jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
While explaining its reasoning, the court relied on two important judgments:
- “Shyamlal Devda and others Vs Parimala Criminal Appeal no. 141 of 2020, d/d 22.1.2020, Law Finder Doc Id # 1669063”
- “Karan Lohia @ Deepak and others Vs State of Haryana and another CRM-M-19460 of 2019 (O&M), d/d 1.5.2019”
On this basis, the court finally allowed the husband’s application, saying that the domestic-violence complaint had to be dismissed.
This judgment is extremely important because it exposes a common pattern:
Many wives living abroad or in other cities file domestic-violence complaints in random courts simply to harass the husband or to drag him into long litigation.
The Domestic Violence Act is meant to provide protection, not to be used as a tool of pressure. When a case is filed without any connection to the city, the husband is forced to travel, lose income, pay lawyers, and suffer mental stress.
This order shows that courts are increasingly alert and are refusing to entertain such jurisdiction-abusing complaints. When a wife herself says she lives in Australia, and the couple has not lived in Khanna at all, filing a DV case there becomes nothing but harassment.
Such attempts not only waste judicial time but also create emotional and financial trauma for men who are already fighting multiple battles.
The Khanna court’s dismissal is a welcome relief for the husband and a strong reminder that the law cannot be bent to file cases anywhere just to trouble the man.
Explanatory Table Of All Laws, Sections & Judgments Mentioned
| Law / Case Name | Section / Citation | Purpose / Explanation in Simple Indian English | How It Applied in This Case |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 27 – Jurisdiction | Says DV case can be filed only where the aggrieved woman resides, works, or where the cause of action happened. | Wife lives in Australia, not Khanna; no incident happened in Khanna; so court said no jurisdiction. |
| Shyamlal Devda & Others vs Parimala | Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2020, decided on 22.01.2020 | Supreme Court judgment that clarifies DV complaints must be filed in correct territorial jurisdiction. | Court used this ruling to support dismissal of the wife’s complaint. |
| Law Finder Doc ID # 1669063 | — | Reference number for the Shyamlal Devda case on Law Finder database. | Used to authenticate the legal precedent. |
| Karan Lohia @ Deepak & Others vs State of Haryana & Another | CRM-M-19460-2019 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana High Court, decided on 01.05.2019 | High Court judgment reinforcing that DV cases cannot be filed in courts that have no territorial link. | Court relied on this decision to confirm lack of jurisdiction. |
| General Jurisdiction Principle (Civil & Criminal) | — | A court cannot hear a case if none of the events or residence of parties connects to its territory. | Wife never lived in Khanna → Case dismissed. |
Case Summary
Case Title: XXX vs YYY Case No.: COMA-12-2024
Date of Judgment: 15.11.2025
Court & Bench: Sh. Bhupinder Kumar Mittal, PCS Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khanna (UID No. PB0381)
Counsels Appearing:
- For the Husband / Applicant (Respondent No.1):
Tripaksha Litigation – Represented by Partner: Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate
- For the Petitioners (Wife and Minor Child):
Sh. Nikhil Dhir, Advocate
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.