Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Bombay High Court in the judgment passed in the leading case on 19th October, 2019 held that the Indian courts will have jurisdiction over a complain under section 498 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for domestic violence committed abroad.
According to the petitioner in this case, he married Neelima on December 26, 2008 in Lucknow as per Muslim law. And after that in the year 2009 the couple shifted to North Carolina, USA and in 2012 they shifted to California. They also have a son of 6 years old named Zayan.
On August 2014, Neelima left her matrimonial home and went to live with her brother. In September, the couple met and the petitioner filed for divorce and child custody petition in California. The petitioner also alleged that between 14 and 20 several summons were served to Neelima but she eluded the service. Neelima came back to india on 21 January, 2015 and started residing in Merut. In the month of May 2015, the petitioner granted a divorce to Neelima in India and a year later in July 2016 Neelima filed for permanent custody petition before the family court in Bandra. She also filed a FIR against the petitioner in October, 2016. In November 2016, the Supreme court gave the custody of child to the petitioner and on November 18, 2016 California Superior Court issued a warrant of arrest to the petitioner.
Neelima filed a case under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mulund. The Metropolitan Magistrate passed the maintenance order on March 18, 2017. On June 23, 2017, the Sessions Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by Petitioner.
The Advocate Prashant Pandey who appeared on behalf of the petitioner argued that the complaint was already 2 years delayed and it should have been dismissed on the ground alone of the delay. He also argued that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain any case which is committed outside india. And Neelima is residing at Bandra but it was a temporary stay so he has absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain the case. Pandey also made the allegations against the wife that she refused to leave the Master's programme during her pregnancy which made her work hard.
Advocate Shaheen who is the advocate of respondents wife said that she is financially dependent on the petitioner. He also pointed out that Rs. 30,000 as maintenance amount given to wife was inadequate. And also made a point that till date the petitioner has only given 60% of the amount inspite of signing the undertaking to pay the arrears in full.
Thus, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shinde said -
"Respondent No. 2 has stated in the affidavit that, she is residing with her brother at Mumbai. The said has been considered by the Sessions Court. In the light of judgment made by both the Courts, there is no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, Magistrate's Court at Mumbai has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint."
86540
103860
630
114
59824