PUNE: A sessions court here has rejected the revision application by a 32-year-old US citizen of Indian origin and his NRI parents living in Botswana, Africa, challenging the lower court's order on maintainability of provisions under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005 against them in a case filed by his 27-year-old wife, who hails from the city.
The court of additional sessions judge N G Gimekar also directed the magisterial court to expedite the plea by the husband and his parents against certain interim reliefs granted to the wife and to settle the issue of applicability of DV Act.
The couple, belonging to Punjabi Hindu families, was married on December 27, 2010 in Haryana and lived in Chandigarh for a week before going to Botswana on January 4, 2011 to be with the husband's parents. On January 9, 2011, the husband (name withheld), an MBA graduate, left for the US to join work, his wife, who is BE and MBA graduate, stayed back with her in-laws. She returned to India on January 25, 2011 after complaining that she was being subjected to domestic violence in Botswana and filed a case here against the trio under the DV Act.
Lawyers, representing either sides, are since debating before the courts various questions of law as to whether the DV Act has any extra territorial applicability and whether the offence alleged to have been committed by a US citizen against an Indian person in Botswana, can be taken cognizance of by the courts in India. The case has been heard at different stages by the magisterial court, the sessions court and the Bombay high court prior to the latest order by the sessions court.
After the wife had filed a plea on her return to India, a magisterial court granted her certain reliefs including an interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month and a restraining order on the husband and the two in-laws from committing any domestic violence. The husband and the in-laws have since appealed against these reliefs and the same is pending consideration before the court.
In a related move, the husband and his parents filed an application before the magisterial court arguing that the proceeding against them under the DV Act was not maintainable and be dropped. They argued that the husband is a US citizen and, hence, not amenable to the jurisdiction of Indian courts while the parents are NRIs and the act of domestic violence, as alleged, occurred in Botswana. Hence, it is not cognizable by Indian courts.
On January 4, the magisterial court rejected this application on the grounds that "the allegation and counter-allegations could be considered at the time of final hearing." The trio then moved the revision application before the sessions court challenging the lower court's order and the same was heard by judge Gimekar.
In a 17-page judgment pronounced on December 6, judge Gimekar observed, "The magistrate has kept open the issue of maintainability to be decided at the time of final hearing and therefore the order did not decide the rights of the parties finally. As such, it is not a final order but, an interlocutory order and hence the revision petition is not tenable."
Lawyer Abhijit Sarwate, who is appearing for the husband and in-laws, told TOI on Thursday, "The lower court will now frame specific issues, arising from the matter, for determination on whether the DV Act is maintainable in the case. We will articulate our position before the magisterial court when the next hearing is expected to take place on January 3."