A wife files her Domestic Violence Act case where she lives — in Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu. The shared household she asks to be protected in is the matrimonial home in Bangalore, Karnataka. Can the Krishnagiri Magistrate pass a residence order over a Bangalore property? On 12 November 2026, in Manoharan v. Gokula Priya (CRP Nos. 5203 and 5205 of 2024, 2026:MHC:4541), Justice S. Sounthar of the Madras High Court answered yes, dismissing the husband’s side’s challenge and reading Section 27 of the Act exactly as it is written.
The litigation in brief
The parties married on 14 February 2013 and set up their matrimonial home in Bangalore. The wife later filed DVC No. 64 of 2019 before the Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Krishnagiri — the district where she resided — seeking residence and protection orders. On 21 February 2023 the Magistrate granted both: a residence order in respect of the Bangalore house and a protection order, while dismissing her maintenance prayer. The husband’s side appealed; the Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri dismissed the appeals (CA Nos. 33 of 2023 and 13 of 2023) on 5 July 2024. Two civil revision petitions under Article 227 followed, pressed on a single point: the Bangalore property lies outside the Krishnagiri Magistrate’s territorial limits, so the residence order was said to be without jurisdiction.
Section 27, read whole
The petitioners relied on a Madhya Pradesh High Court decision, Dr. Hitesh v. Dr. Smt. Pritibala (2023), for the proposition that a residence order cannot travel beyond the issuing court’s limits. The wife answered with the Supreme Court’s decision in Shyamlal Devda v. Parimala ((2020) 3 SCC 14) and with the text of Section 27(2). Justice S. Sounthar decided the point on the statute itself. Since the wife resided within the Krishnagiri Magistrate’s limits, the complaint was properly entertained: the court noted that “the aggrieved person namely the respondent resides within the territorial limits of Magistrate” (para 9). And on the central question, the court held that Section 27(2) supplies the answer: the order is enforceable throughout India, and “the place of the residence in respect of which residential order is passed is not relevant” (para 10). The conclusion was unqualified: “I do not find any jurisdictional error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate” (para 11). Both revisions were dismissed without costs; the residence and protection orders stand.
Why the design makes sense
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is built around the aggrieved woman’s convenience, not the respondent’s or the property’s. A woman driven out of her matrimonial home frequently returns to her parental town — often in another district or State. If the residence remedy could be granted only by the court where the house stands, the statute’s most important relief would be available only at the one place the woman may find hardest to litigate in. Section 27(1) therefore lets her sue where she is, and Section 27(2) ensures that what she wins there binds the respondent wherever the shared household may be.
Practice notes
For the aggrieved person: plead the jurisdictional facts under Section 27(1) precisely — the address of current residence, with supporting material — because jurisdiction over the person is what carries the order across district lines.
For respondents: a territorial objection aimed only at the location of the property is now a weak point in Tamil Nadu, and the reasoning — resting on the central statute — will be persuasive elsewhere. Objections are better directed at whether the premises qualify as a shared household at all.
Residence orders operating on out-of-State property are executed through the machinery of the Act — the Magistrate, Protection Officer and the police of the place concerned — precisely because Section 27(2) commands nationwide enforceability.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where can a DV Act complaint be filed?
Section 27(1) gives jurisdiction to the Judicial Magistrate of the first class or Metropolitan Magistrate within whose local limits the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed, where the respondent resides or works, or where the cause of action arose. The aggrieved woman’s own place of residence is a complete basis by itself.
Can the residence order cover property outside the court’s district?
Yes. The Madras High Court held that once the Magistrate has jurisdiction over the person under Section 27(1), the location of the shared household is not a limit on the relief: Section 27(2) declares that any order made under the Act is enforceable throughout India, so the order can relate to a house in another district or another State.
What orders were under challenge in this case?
A residence order in respect of the Bangalore matrimonial home and a protection order, passed by the Krishnagiri Magistrate in 2023 and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge in appeal in 2024. The husband’s side then filed civil revision petitions under Article 227 confined to the territorial point, which the High Court dismissed.
Does this help aggrieved women in Delhi?
The reasoning rests on the central statute, not on any local rule. A woman residing in Delhi can approach the Magistrate where she lives even if the shared household is in another city, and the order she obtains travels with the property: Section 27(2) makes it enforceable wherever in India the house is situated.