HEADNOTE
Nikhil Rajendra More & Ors. v. Vishakha Nikhil More
Court: Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)
Bench: Justice Abhay J. Mantri
Date of Judgment: January 9, 2026
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:1432
Laws / Sections Involved: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 12 & 27
Keywords: Domestic Violence Act, territorial jurisdiction, temporary residence, animus manendi, Section 27 DV Act, misuse of jurisdiction
Summary
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) allowed a criminal writ petition and set aside orders of the Magistrate and Sessions Court which had assumed jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on the basis of the wife’s alleged “temporary residence” at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The Court held that a mere casual or contrived stay does not amount to “temporary residence” under Section 27 of the DV Act. Emphasising the requirement of animus manendi—a clear intention to stay for a considerable period—the Court ruled that bald averments without supporting documentary evidence cannot confer territorial jurisdiction. Finding that the respondent-wife failed to prove any genuine educational residence at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, the Court quashed the proceedings while granting liberty to file a fresh complaint before the competent forum.
Court’s decision
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the criminal writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Additional Sessions Judge, which had held that the Magistrate at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the wife’s DV Act application. The Court held that the respondent failed to establish that she was either permanently or temporarily residing within the jurisdiction with an intention to stay, as required under Section 27 of the DV Act. Consequently, the objection application filed by the husband and in-laws was allowed, while liberty was granted to the wife to approach the appropriate court.
Facts
The marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnised in November 2022 at Latur, where the couple resided after marriage. Following matrimonial disputes, the wife lodged complaints before authorities at Latur and Kalamb, consistently showing her residence at those places. In February 2024, she filed an application under the DV Act before the Magistrate at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, claiming that she was “temporarily residing” there for educational purposes at her cousin-uncle’s house. The husband and in-laws objected to territorial jurisdiction, contending that the claim of residence was false and unsupported by documents.
Issues
The principal issues before the Court were whether a casual or unsubstantiated stay for an alleged educational purpose could be treated as “temporary residence” under Section 27 of the DV Act, and whether such an averment was sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Magistrate.
Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners argued that the respondent had never genuinely resided at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and that all prior records—including Aadhaar details, police complaints, and service of court notices—showed her residence at Latur or Kalamb. It was contended that the plea of educational residence was vague, unsupported by any proof of admission or study, and was raised only to harass the petitioners by dragging them to a distant forum. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedent explaining that residence requires animus manendi and not a flying visit.
Respondent’s arguments
The respondent argued that Section 27 of the DV Act confers jurisdiction on the court where the aggrieved woman permanently or temporarily resides, irrespective of where the cause of action arose. It was submitted that her statement that she was residing at her relative’s house for educational purposes was sufficient at the preliminary stage and that disputed questions of residence could be examined during trial.
Analysis of the law
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 27 of the DV Act and the concept of “resides”, relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh. It held that the statute contemplates residence accompanied by a definite intention to stay, even if temporary, and excludes casual or artificial stays engineered solely to invoke jurisdiction. The DV Act’s welfare nature, the Court held, cannot justify dilution of jurisdictional requirements.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh (AIR 1963 SC 1521) to reiterate that residence must involve animus manendi. Authorities cited by the respondent were distinguished on facts, as those cases involved admitted or established residence for education or shelter, unlike the present case where no documentary proof was produced despite repeated opportunities.
Court’s reasoning
The Court noted that the respondent failed to disclose the name of any college, course, or duration of study, and produced no documents except an electricity bill of a relative’s house. Service of notices after filing of the DV application continued to be effected at her parental home. These circumstances, the Court held, negated any intention to reside at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. Accepting such vague pleas, the Court cautioned, would encourage forum shopping and misuse of the DV Act.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that a mere bald assertion of temporary residence, without proof or intention to stay, cannot confer jurisdiction under Section 27 of the DV Act. The impugned orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Implications
This judgment is significant in curbing forum shopping under the DV Act and clarifies that welfare legislation cannot be misused to artificially create jurisdiction. Courts must carefully scrutinise claims of “temporary residence” and insist on objective material demonstrating animus manendi before assuming territorial jurisdiction.
Case law references
• Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh (AIR 1963 SC 1521)
Holding: Residence requires intention to stay; casual visits do not constitute residence.
Application: Applied to interpret “temporary residence” under Section 27 DV Act.
FAQs
Q1. What does “temporary residence” mean under the DV Act?
It requires a genuine intention to stay for a considerable period and not a casual or artificial visit.
Q2. Can a DV case be filed anywhere for convenience?
No. Jurisdiction under Section 27 depends on actual residence, respondent’s residence, or cause of action.
Q3. Was the wife barred from filing a DV case?
No. She was granted liberty to file a fresh application before the competent court.