Delhi High Court: Wife’s Shelter Home After Separation Determines Jurisdiction in Matrimonial Cases

The Delhi High Court has clarified that when a woman leaves her matrimonial home due to harassment or cruelty, the court in the place where she takes shelter or resides afterward has the authority to hear her case.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in Smt Karuna Sejpal Gupta & Ors v. State & Anr, observed that though the acts of cruelty may have occurred at the matrimonial home, the emotional and psychological effects continue to follow the woman to her parental or shelter home.

“The trauma and consequences of harassment accompany her wherever she goes to live after separation. Even when the couple lives apart, the strained relationship continues to affect her through complaints or ongoing conflict,” the judge said.

Referring to Sections 177, 178, and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court explained that an offence can be tried not only where it occurred but also where its effects are felt. Hence, when a woman suffers ongoing consequences of cruelty or dowry harassment, the court in her current place of residence has jurisdiction.

The ruling came while hearing a plea from the woman’s in-laws, who sought to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The woman had married in 2016, but her husband died by suicide just 40 days later. Allegations of dowry harassment and abetment of suicide were made against the in-laws, leading to an FIR in Delhi.

The petitioners argued that since the marriage and related events occurred outside Delhi, local courts lacked jurisdiction. However, the High Court rejected this, stating that the emotional distress and continued impact of cruelty gave Delhi courts jurisdiction.

At the same time, Justice Bansal Krishna quashed the FIR, holding that the allegations were vague and continuing the proceedings would amount to misuse of the law. “It is a clear case of abuse of power and not in the interest of justice to allow the proceedings to continue,” the Court said.