MWPRD Act | Divorced Lady Must Reside Within Jurisdictional Limit Of Magistrate To Avail Benefit Of Act: Kerala HC Denies Relief To Malaysian Citizen
The Kerala High Court has quashed a complaint filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (MWPRD Act) by a woman with Malaysian citizenship. Section 2(c) of MWPRD Act defines Magistrate as Magistrate of First Class exercising jurisdiction under Code of Criminal Procedure in the area where the divorced woman resides. The complainant had argued that the complaint...
The Kerala High Court has quashed a complaint filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (MWPRD Act) by a woman with Malaysian citizenship.
Section 2(c) of MWPRD Act defines Magistrate as Magistrate of First Class exercising jurisdiction under Code of Criminal Procedure in the area where the divorced woman resides. The complainant had argued that the complaint is maintainable as the residence shown in the complaint comes within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
The Court however noted that the complainant was a citizen of Malaysia, and her marriage and divorce also took place in Malaysia.
The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jeewanti Pandey v Kishan Chandra Pandey (1982) where it was held that residence is a place where a person lives and can be defined as a place where one lives for a considerable period of time as distinguished from the place where he just works or a place of casual visit.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed:
“Reading the above decision, the term 'residence' is generally understood as referring to a person in connection with the place where he lives, and may be defined as one who resides in a place or one who dwells in a place for a considerable amount of time as distinguished from one who merely works in a certain locality or comes casually for a visit and the place of work or place of casual visit are different from the place of 'residence'. The term 'residence' literally means the fact of living in a particular place.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the complainant would not come under the definition of a 'divorced woman resides' within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates K. Shibili Naha, A. Lowsy, Nivea K. G.
Counsel for the Respondent: Advocates Arun Bose D., K. Viswan, Sooraj S.
Case No: Crl. M. C. No. 8481 of 2022
Case Title: Sahesh Rafeeque v Nural Inshira Binti Abdul Kareem
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 472
Click Here to Read/ Download The Order