Courts in place where wife takes shelter after separation have jurisdiction in matrimonial disputes: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that the court in the place where a wife seeks shelter after leaving her matrimonial home having suffered from harassment or cruelty, has territorial jurisdiction to hear the case [Smt Karuna Sejpal Gupta & Ors v. State & Anr]. 

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna recognised that although the acts of cruelty and harassment may occur in the matrimonial home, the trauma and consequences of these acts continue to affect the woman in her parental home as well. 

“Applying these principles, especially to the matrimonial disputes, it emerges that the acts of cruelty may be committed upon a woman in a particular jurisdiction but the consequence, impact and trauma is carried by her to the place where she sets up her abode or takes shelter. This implies that the consequence of harassment manifests itself in the place where she goes to live after separation. It can also not be overlooked that even though there may be physical separation, but the relation continues even if it is acrimonious and is by way of various complaints that may follow,” the judgment said. 

The Court reasoned that a conjoint reading of Sections 177, 178, 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that the fundamental principle of territorial jurisdiction is that such a court within whose jurisdiction the crime or any part thereof or has continued, would have the jurisdiction. 

“S 179 further provides that the court where the consequence of the offence has ensued would also have the jurisdiction,” the Court observed.

The Bench rendered these findings while dealing with a plea filed by a woman’s in-laws for quashing of criminal proceedings against them under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged dowry harassment and cruelty. 

The woman got married in the year 2016, but within 40 days of the wedding, her husband committed suicide. The couple allegedly experienced marital discord almost immediately after marriage, and the husband allegedly confided his distress to his family.  

After his death, the woman and her family accused her in-laws of demanding dowry and abetment of suicide. An FIR was registered in Delhi, and a chargesheet was also filed before the magistrate’s court. 

However, the petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Delhi courts, arguing that the marriage and most events occurred outside Delhi. They denied the allegation that they made dowry demands.

After considering the case, the High Court rejected the arguments against its jurisdiction, observing that the mental distress and impact of prior cruelty persisted at the place where the wife resided after leaving the matrimonial home, thus giving Delhi courts legitimate jurisdiction.

However, the Court quashed the FIR. 

“Therefore, it is evidently a case of vague allegations and clear case of abuse of power and it is not in the interest of justice if the present proceedings are permitted to be continued,” the Bench observed. 

Advocates Rahul Shukla, Ramandeep Singh, Bachita Shukla and Nimrit Bhalla, Sulaiman Mohd Khan, Taiba Khan, Bhanu Malhotra, Gopeshwar Singh Chandel, Abdul Bari Khan, Aditya Chaudhary and Aditi Chaudhary appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor Utkarsh represented the State. 

Advocates Tribindh Kumar and Bineet Pandey appeared for the complainant woman. 

[Read Judgment]