2013 CRI. L. J. 2182 ::(2015) 1 MarriLJ 482 ::(2014) 1 Crimes 275 ::(2013) 4 Crimes 15 ::(2013) 2 DMC 649 ::(2014) 1 CurCC 217 ::2013 AllMR(CRI) 167

Delhi High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): G. P. Mittal , J

(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (43 of 2005) , S.12, S.2(f)— @page-CriLJ2183Protection order - Could be obtained only against person who was in domestic relationship with person aggrieved - Aggrieved wife was permanent resident of U. K. and temporarily visited India - Respondents who were father-in-law, brother-in-law and other near relations of her husband were not in domestic relationship with aggrieved wife - Thus, no protection order could be passed against them.2010 Cri LJ 2173, 2010 (3) LRC 177 (Del) and 2010 (3) LRC 291 (Del), Relied on. (Para 10 12) (B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (43 of 2005) , S.27, S.28— Protection order - Jurisdiction of Court - Aggrieved wife was permanent residents of U. K. and casually visited India - At time of filing of complaint under Act, wife was residing with her parents within jurisdiction of Delhi Courts - Fact that a non-molestation order was obtained by her by approaching Brent Ford County Court under Family Law Act, 1996 - By itself not sufficient to exclude jurisdiction of Delhi Courts - Simply because wife returned to India either temporarily or permanently will not disentitle her to invoke provisions of D. V. Act if she has a case on merits. 2010 Cri LJ 3751, Relied on. ....