$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010153592020 + CRL.M.C. 1305/2020 and CRL.M.A. 5016/2020 APURVA ANAND .....Petitioner Through: Dr. Aman Hingorani, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shreem Bajpai, Advocate. Versus CHANCHAL NIRANJAN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. M.P. Narayan, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. The present petition seeks setting aside of the order dated 16.12.2019 [“Impugned Order”], whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) was rejected by the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-04) South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner takes this Court through the decision passed by this Court in the case of Sharad Kumar Pandey vs. Mamta Pandey1 wherein it was held that a temporary residence must "be a continuing residence from the date of acquiring 1 171 (2010) Delhi Law Times 565 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:06:28 residence till the application under Section 12 is disposed of". The learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the binding nature of a judgement of this Hon'ble Court. In light of such finding, he submits, it is not open to the learned Magistrate to hold that there "is no requirement under D.V. Act that the complainant has to continue to reside at the temporary residence till the disposal of the application". 3. Submissions made on behalf of the petitioner are vehemently opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. The respondent was residing at N-3/4, First Floor, Mohan Garden, Delhi-110059, at the time of filing of the complaint in February, 2014 and continued to reside there for the next three years. 4. It is submitted that the respondent was working with EHI International Pvt. Ltd. at its office in Gurgaon between September, 2013 and July, 2015 and had taken the aforesaid premises at Uttam Nagar for her residence. Therefore, the respondent was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at the time of filing of the complaint and the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the same. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The Court finds that the findings rendered by the Magistrate in paragraph no. 6 of the Impugned Order would justify the invocation of the jurisdiction for complaint filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Even the aspect of jurisdiction can further be gone into at the time of rendering final decision. 7. The aforesaid aspect cannot, at this stage, denude the concerned Court This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:06:28 from adjudicating the complaint and taking it to its logical conclusion. Reference to paragraph nos. 9 and 11 of the Impugned Order can also be made. The said paragraphs are extracted as under:- “9. So far as the contention of the applicant that the complainant had left the said residence during the pendency of complaint and had not continued to reside there till disposal of the present complaint, I find no merit in the contention. It is well settled that judgments are not be read as statutes and no such interpretation ought to be given which would defeat the very purpose of the Act. … 11. There is no requirement under D.V. Act that the complainant has to continue to reside at the temporary residence till the disposal of the application, particularly, when disposal of the applications take long time due to various reasons beyond the control of the complainant. Since law does not provide for any such condition, no such condition can be read on the basis of the observations of Hon'ble High Court in a particular judgment, which any case not the ratio of the case as is explained in the subsequent Judgment of Gautam Sapra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.” 8. The Court, therefore, finds no justification to interfere with the Impugned Order at this stage. However, it shall remain open to the concerned Court to deal with the aforesaid aspect at the time of rendering the final judgment, if so warranted 9. With these observations, the instant petition stands disposed of. Pending application also stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026 Nc/nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/09/2026 at 11:06:28