Before any relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be considered, the application must be before the right court. Section 27 answers that question, and it does so generously: the first class Magistrate — in Delhi, the Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate — of the place where the aggrieved person resides, where the respondent resides, or where the cause of action arose can all take up the case. This explainer sets out how that choice works in practice, why the aggrieved person's current residence is usually the decisive anchor, and what objections respondents can and cannot take.
The text and its three limbs
Section 27(1) provides that the court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate within whose local limits any of the following occurs shall be the competent court: (a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; (b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or (c) the cause of action has arisen. Any of the three suffices — they are alternatives, not cumulative conditions.
| Limb | Anchor | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| S. 27(1)(a) | Aggrieved person's residence, business or employment — permanent or temporary | Wife who has returned to her parents' home in Delhi after leaving the matrimonial home in another city |
| S. 27(1)(b) | Respondent's residence, business or employment | Filing where the husband or in-laws live or work |
| S. 27(1)(c) | Place where the cause of action arose | Filing where the acts of domestic violence occurred, usually the shared household |
The significance of "temporarily resides"
The phrase "permanently or temporarily resides" is the DV Act's most distinctive jurisdictional feature. Most statutes tie jurisdiction to the defendant or to the place of the wrong; Section 27 deliberately adds the survivor's own current location, including a temporary one. The legislative logic is practical: a woman driven out of the shared household often has no option but to take shelter with relatives, and requiring her to litigate back in the city she fled would defeat the Act's protective purpose.
Temporary residence must nonetheless be real. Courts distinguish between a genuine shelter — living with parents, a relative, or independently after leaving the matrimonial home — and a fleeting or contrived presence adopted only to manufacture jurisdiction. The application should therefore plead the residence facts specifically: since when, at what address, with whom, and why.
Which court within Delhi
Within Delhi, the application under Section 12 is filed before the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction over the police station area of the relevant residence, in the district court complex serving that area. Delhi's districts each have Magistrates dealing with DV Act matters, and the Mahila Courts handle much of this docket. The Protection Officer for the district, appointed under Section 8, is attached to the same jurisdiction and prepares the Domestic Incident Report where directed.
Objections respondents can and cannot take
- Available: a factual challenge that the claimed residence is not genuine — supported by material, not bare denial.
- Available: a plea that none of the three limbs connects the chosen court at all.
- Not available: an argument that the matrimonial home or the marriage was elsewhere, when the aggrieved person genuinely resides within the court's limits.
- Not available: mere inconvenience of distance — the Act consciously prefers the aggrieved person's access.
Orders travel with the parties
Section 27(2) declares that any order made under the Act shall be enforceable throughout India. A protection order under Section 18 or a residence order under Section 19 passed by a Delhi Magistrate therefore does not lapse at the State border. Breach of a protection order is an offence under Section 31, and the machinery of the Act — Protection Officers and service providers — exists in every district in the country.
Practice note: Plead jurisdiction in a dedicated paragraph of the Section 12 application, stating the precise limb of Section 27 relied upon and the supporting facts. Jurisdictional pleading that is specific at the outset forecloses the most common preliminary objection and saves months of interlocutory skirmishing.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a wife file a DV case in the city where she has moved after leaving her husband?
Yes. Section 27(1)(a) confers jurisdiction on the court within whose local limits the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides. A woman who has left the matrimonial home and taken shelter with her parents or elsewhere can file where she now lives, even temporarily, provided the residence is genuine and not adopted solely to create jurisdiction.
Does it matter that the marriage and the alleged violence happened in another State?
Not by itself. The three limbs of Section 27(1) are alternatives. If the aggrieved person now resides in Delhi, a Delhi court has jurisdiction even though the matrimonial home, the marriage and the alleged acts were all elsewhere. The respondent may contest the genuineness of the residence, but not the principle.
Is a DV order passed in one State enforceable in another?
Yes. Section 27(2) provides that an order made under the Act shall be enforceable throughout India. A protection or residence order obtained in Delhi therefore binds the respondent wherever he is, and breach of a protection order is an offence under Section 31 wherever it occurs.
Can the respondent seek transfer of a DV case filed far from his home?
He can apply, but transfer is not granted merely because the chosen forum is inconvenient to him. The Act is designed for the aggrieved person's access to justice. Transfer petitions succeed only on strong grounds, and the ordinary rule remains that the aggrieved person's choice among the Section 27 forums stands.