Jurisdiction

1. Go through the DV petition and if any allegation is not directly attributable to you, you can move application to delete your name from the case.

2.  Yes. She can.  She can file DV case from the place, where she has been residing at the time of filing the petition, even the allegations pertained to UAE.  In other aspects also DV petition is maintainable.

Going by your version, she can imply you but she has little chance of succeeding in it.

If she has filed CASE under domestic violence against her better half under desertion, yes it is possible, if she has filed case based on incidents in UAE, she cannot  and her chances are getting through it is slim.

@ Author,

1. I differ to opinion of Adv. Chandrasekhar on jurisdiction. 

2. For alleged incidences of DV that heppened in UAE, without seeking permission from Central Govt. the case is lacking jurisdiction. 
 

3. Respondent husband should first file preliminary objections on jurisdiction of local Magistrate court to trial this complaint case under DV Act without Central Govt. permission.. Many respondent husbands have succeeded in stalling such trial. 

4. As far as family members of NRI husband living within boundaries of Indian Union are concerned they can face the trial as per their evidentiary strength against the leveled charges in consultation with local advocate and seek discharge based on merits (some are mentioned by you in the brief and there may be others which local advocate may point them out if consulted).  

[Last reply]

Section 27 of DV Act relates to jurisdiction. I extracted the relavant part to show that the wife has got a right to file case in Chennai, as she temporarily resides there.

27. Jurisdiction.—(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which—

(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or

DV Act being a special legislation to protect the women, it has departured the procedure followed in Civil Procedure Code and Criminal procedure Code, relating to the jurisdiction and carved out further jurisdiction of the place where the petitioner/complainant/wife/aggrieved person resides temporarily. So, for conferring the jurisdiction, we cannot follow the traditional principle that jurisdiction lies only in that area where the alleged offence occured.

On the other point, taking permission from Central Government, it is a news to me, because neither Act nor Rules talk about Central Government and in them, we see the reference of "State Government". Further, if the respondent (see, the Act is not referring him 'accused' as generally referred in criminal law) is a private citizen (in the enquirer's question, no where it is mentioned he is a Central Government Officer working abroad), then how and why Central Govt.'s sanction is required? Further, Mr. Tajob's response is "stalling" of the proceedings and not "quashing" the proceedings in respect of the DV proceedings of husband.

I reiterate my opinion expressed in my first post.

ld. brother Adv Chandrasekhar,

1. You are partially right by showing me Law which I am fully aware of. 

2. Would you like me to show you meaning of 'cause of action'; I hope you are aware about the rule that cause of action attracts jurisdiction in suits is based on statutory enactment. What is cause of action in her DV Complaint suit and where cause of action rests?. Are not her allegations against primary respondent (husband) based on incidences of domestic violence that happened in UAE? Did he (respondent husband) cause to do any domestic violence in boundaries of India with date/month/year? 

3. What S. 27 DV Act says is right but it is 'generic' and not meant for usage in this queriest facts as all cause of action such as sets of DV allegations are based out of boundaries of India and for that Central Government sanction is Bar. 

4. Why should I attempt to stall when objective is to seek first clarification from Magistrate Court if trial can commence beyond the cognisance stag of incidences which didnot happen within boundaries under his jurisdiction without sanction of Central  Govt. against the primary respondent (husband) ? Unless ld. Magistrate says so,  'quashing' will not be effective remedy on the onset. Step by step the respondent husband should go and it is no means called stalling, it is referred to as correct investment of advocates wisdom  :-)

5. Thus I also stand reiterated of my opinion expressed in my very first post i.e. preliminary objection filing first at trial court and seek for or against an Order from ld. Magistrate and then approach State's HC on sole merit point and he (respondent husband) will succeed .

I had an exactly similar situation in that my wife, a citizen of India, filed a DV case in India against me, a citizen of a western country, based upon alleged acts in that western country.  The issue of jurisdiction was raised as an in limine defense and was not accepted. I will not go into the long arguments and cases offered by me at that time but the outcome was, unfortunately for me, in line with Adv. Chandrasekar's explanation. In short, Adv. Chandrasekar is right unless the law has developed in another direction in the past three years or so. If both are citizens of India, then the law as cited by Adv. Chandrasekhar is even more applicable.  My statement is based upon real experience and not based upon expertise in the legal area of jurisdiction. 

Even if the rules of IPC/Cr.P.C. were to be applied, absent any special provisions in the DV Act, I think that Adv. Tajobsindia's explanation would still be wrong if both are citizens of India. 

@ Samir N (2HelpU)

The problem with NRI’s like you and Jimmy here in Legal public forum is that you know better about Indian Laws than Indian Advocates!


Since it is public forum I will not say more than following; "Apex Court Bench comprising three Lordships in 2011 has already laid down law in a criminal case under family laws that the trial cannot proceed beyond the cognisance stage without the previous sanction of the central government.”

Admission hearing of DV or S. 498a criminal cases or S. 125 CrPC + Issue Notice + Charge Sheet are cognizance stage in case of both spouse are Indian and female spouse is alleging incidences of what happened overseas in a foreign country and male spouse is living in a foreign country which is exact case of this queriest’s son who is living in UAE (I omit your wife’s DV case as you and Jimmy are idiots here as per me), upto that stage Magistrate can proceed and beyond that the trail cannot proceed in these family law cases without previous sanction of the central government and I advised exact Law to the queriest. 

When NRI’s like you and Jimmy feel tired of searching above specific Law from Apex Court decided in 2011 then come running to me I will teach you more about Indian Laws that also for free. You challenged me on development of Law in last 3 years specific to your Indian’s wife’s DV case upon you who is a NRI for DV incidences that happened overseas as you continued living abroad still being Indian and I am giving you a Legal reply which is within substance, correctness or precision.

I welcome your’s and Jimmy’s comment on Indian Laws read with comments on Indian Advocates and more specifically my replies to various queriests in the forum, keep talking more in public and I will keep correcting legally both of you for FREE.

@TajobsIndia, I stated my experience and provided a non-conclusive opinion ("I think") that you are wrong. Why have you directed this unwarranted and rude acrimony at me and NRIs in general, even calling us "idiots"? Let me try this in Hindi: Sharaab lii thi kya? Kaam dhanda kuch nahin kya? Raat din LCI me lambi-lambi kahaniya liktha reheta hai. Pagaal kahin ka!

Thanks for the posts.

Can somebody cite some Judgements on this subject?

Also, is there any judgement punishing the filer of false 498a or false DV case?

Querist.

You will have to undergo the trial completely under DV case.  You should come out clean out of DV only then you can file a perjury case against DIL and company, for lying under oath is an offence and is punishable upto 7 years of imprisonment and also fine.

However, you being the co-accused will come out free of this DV case, as you are no where connected to the DIL in anyway.  

But it is really hard to believe that your son took back a 498a wife.  She once filed a false 498a and it was later quashed, should have opted for divorce than taking the wife back.  What on earth made your son take back his wife in the first place?  Either your son has no brain, or you are hiding something.  

Even though there is time limitation factor for DV case, the case will go for trial, and based on merits of the case, you will come out of it sooner or later [read that as 5-6 years], even for the judge, they got only 60 days to finish the  case, but due to large number of cases which are already pending, your case will take time to be heard and trialled.

 @Helping Hand

I am not hiding anything. My DIL was forced to give false 498a by her parents by all means since she had love marriage with my son against their wishes as admitted by her during the mediation and also as per her affidavit submitted to HC.

We innocently believed that she would not repeat it and wanted to give her an opportunity. She, without having maturity and without thinking about her as well as the child's future, again fell pray to her parent's ill-advice and deserted her husband and filed false DV case.