Designated MP/MLA Courts Have Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Domestic Violence Act Proceedings Against Elected Representatives.

The Petitioner, a sitting MLA from Uttar Pradesh, and the Respondent were married in 1995 but have lived separately in Delhi since 2017 following matrimonial disputes.

While divorce and restitution proceedings were pending in the Saket Family Court, the Respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Saket Courts.

She subsequently withdrew it and refiled it before the designated MP/MLA Court (ACJM-04) at Rouse Avenue Courts, citing High Court Notification No. 35 dated 23.02.2018 regarding trials against elected representatives.

On 08.07.2024, the learned ACJM issued summons to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the MP/MLA Court lacks territorial jurisdiction and that PWDV proceedings, being civil in nature, cannot be heard by a designated criminal court for MPs/MLAs.

The court applied Section 2(i) and Section 27 of the PWDV Act, which define "Magistrate" as a Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the Cr.P.C.

It relied on Section 28 of the PWDV Act, which mandates that proceedings under Sections 12 and 18-23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the Cr.P.C.

The court cited Kunapareddy alias Nookala Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, establishing that while PWDV remedies are predominantly civil, the forum is a Criminal Court.

The court considered the administrative directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, which led to the creation of designated MP/MLA Courts for concentrated and expeditious adjudication.

The Court reasoned that a designated MP/MLA Court is not a separate statutory entity but a regular Magisterial Court assigned specific cases for administrative efficiency pursuant to Supreme Court directions.

Although PWDV reliefs (protection, residence, etc.) are civil, the legislature consciously vested jurisdiction in Criminal Magistrates because the Act contemplates penal consequences under Section 31 for breaches of such orders.

The Court found that since the Respondent resides in Delhi, territorial jurisdiction under Section 27 is satisfied within the state.

The Court further observed that splitting "civil" PWDV reliefs and "criminal" PWDV breaches between different courts would lead to procedural complications and multiplicity of proceedings.

Since the Petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice or denial of a fair hearing, the administrative allocation of the case to the Rouse Avenue MP/MLA Court was deemed valid.

The Court held that the institution of the case at the MP/MLA Court is a valid administrative arrangement that ensures continuity and expeditious disposal, dismissed the petition, and upheld the summoning order dated 08.07.2024.