Dowry Harassment Not Bound by Geography: Kerala High Court Holds Complaint Maintainable at Place of Temporary Residence

“Where the Woman Suffers, There Lies Jurisdiction”:  In a significant ruling Kerala High Court set aside an order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara, which had returned a dowry-related complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Justice G. Girish emphatically held that a complaint under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is maintainable at the place where the victim woman takes shelter and temporarily resides, even if the alleged dowry demands occurred elsewhere.

"The court having jurisdiction over the place where the victim suffers the mental trauma of the offence can lawfully entertain the complaint,” the Court declared, restoring the complaint filed by an estranged wife residing at Mavelikkara.

The petitioner, Aparna Kunjamma, had married the first respondent, Anil Sasidharan, on 1 April 2012. She alleged that the respondents—her husband and in-laws—demanded and received dowry in the form of gold ornaments at their family home in Thiruvalla. After facing matrimonial discord, the petitioner returned from her place of employment in Bangalore and took refuge at a relative’s home in Mavelikkara.

It was from this temporary residence that she lodged a complaint before the Magistrate Court at Mavelikkara under Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Initially, the Magistrate recorded her sworn statement, but upon objections raised by the respondents concerning jurisdiction and limitation, the matter was re-examined. Ultimately, by order dated 15 April 2025, the learned Magistrate returned the complaint, stating that he lacked territorial jurisdiction, since the alleged dowry offences occurred in Thiruvalla.

This order prompted the petitioner to move the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking to quash the impugned order and restore the complaint.

The central legal question before the High Court was whether the Magistrate at Mavelikkara had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, even though the alleged acts occurred at Thiruvalla.

The Court noted that Section 199 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which is pari materia with Section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, explicitly allows a complaint to be tried where the consequence of the offence has ensued.

“If it is shown that the victim of an offence under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act suffers the mental trauma of the said offence, at a place where she temporarily resides, then the court having jurisdiction over such place... could entertain a complaint relating to the said offence,” the Court observed.

To fortify its reasoning, the High Court invoked landmark Supreme Court decisions. In Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 5 SCC 384, the apex court had held that offences under Section 498A IPC are continuing in nature, and that courts at the place where the victim takes shelter after being subjected to cruelty also have jurisdiction. This position was reaffirmed in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 4 SCC 749.

“The principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions are applicable to offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act as well,” the High Court ruled. “Both Section 498A IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are enacted with the object of affording protection to women from the evil consequences of dowry.”

Therefore, the High Court rejected the Magistrate’s finding that only the court at Thiruvalla had jurisdiction, stating that it “cannot be said to be legally sound.”

Having found the Magistrate’s reasoning flawed, the High Court issued the following direction:

“Ext.P1 order dated 15.04.2025 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara in C.M.P No.2307/2024 is hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to accept Ext.P2 complaint, and to proceed with enquiry and trial, in accordance with law.”

By this, the Court not only reinstated the petitioner’s complaint, but also reinforced an essential jurisprudential principle: the mental anguish caused by dowry-related abuse is a valid ground for invoking jurisdiction at the place of temporary residence.

This judgment marks a progressive and victim-centric interpretation of criminal jurisdiction under the BNSS. The Kerala High Court has sent a clear message that territorial barriers cannot obstruct justice for women who, after fleeing matrimonial abuse, take refuge elsewhere.

As the Court rightly held: “In cases relating to the commission of offences under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act... the courts at the place where the victim woman takes shelter and temporarily resides, are empowered to conduct enquiry and trial.”

The ruling ensures that legal remedies are accessible where the harm is felt, not just where it originated — an essential stride toward empowering women facing dowry-related oppression.

Date of Decision: 31 July 2025