The bench of Justice SS Shinde at Bombay High Court held that, Indian court have Jurisdiction to trial the case of Domestic Violence committed abroad with Indian national.
In the case petitioner Mohammad Zuber Farooqi got married on Dec, 2008 with respondent no 2 Neelima in Lucknow per the Muslim Law. After the marriage respondent migrated to USA and started living with petitioner. After a year of the birth of a boy child, in year 2014 respondent left her matrimonial home and started living with her brother at Indiana, USA.
The petitioner then filed the divorce and Child custody cases at California Superior Court. In year Jan, 2015 the superior court made several attempt to serve summon the respondent but she deliberately evaded service. In year 2016, the court passed the child custody order in the favour of petitioner and also issued arrest warrant against the respondent.
Meanwhile the respondent came to Indian in Jan, 2015. After a few month in May 2015, the petitioner gave divorce to respondent in India. The respondent wife in year 2016, filed the custody case thereafter Domestic Violence accusing the petitioner husband.
In the matter the magistrate passed an interim maintenence order directing petitioner husband to pay monthly Rs 30,000 and Rs 15,000 for child to respondent wife.
The bench of Justice SS Shinde observed that petitioner husband has deposited Rs 7,00,000 towards the arrears of interim maintenence, while more than half of the amount not deposited.
The Ld. counsel of the petitioner argued about the jurisdiction, since the allegations of domestic violence committed abroad. Ld. counsel challenged the maintainability of the petition under limitation act and submitted that there is a delay of 2 years in filing the complaint by respondent no 2.
The bench referring the Supreme Court judgement said that, it’s a continuing offence and not barred under limitation.
“So far question of limitation for filing the proceedings under Section 12 is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Bhattacharjee Versus Sarathi Choudhary And Another, (2016) 2 SCC 705 held that regard being had to concept of “continuing offence” and demands made by wife, application made by appellant wife under Section 12, 2005 Act after about 2 yrs of judicial separation, not barred by limitation.”
The bench over the jurisdiction, referring the Supreme Court decision in Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
“The Courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would,dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.”
The bench while disposed the petition, also observed that respondent no 2 entitled for interim maintenance.
“There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below that Respondent No. 2 is entitled for interim maintenance. Those findings appears to be in consonance with the material placed on record. In that view of the matter, no case is made outto cause interference in the impugned order. Hence, writ Petition stands rejected. Rule stands discharged.”