Jurisdiction and Procedure: Sections 27 and 28 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Two housekeeping sections decide where a DV case is fought and by what rules. Section 27 fixes territorial jurisdiction, and fixes it generously in the woman's favour: she may sue where she lives, even temporarily, not only where the respondent lives or where the violence happened, and the resulting order runs throughout India. Section 28 supplies the procedure: the Code of Criminal Procedure (now the BNSS) governs, save as the Act otherwise provides, and the court may lay down its own procedure for applications under Section 12 and ex parte orders under Section 23(2). This note explains both, with the leading authority on each.

1. Territorial Jurisdiction: Section 27

1.1 The woman's forum: clause (a)

The striking words are 'permanently or temporarily resides'. A woman who flees the matrimonial home in one city and takes refuge with her parents in another may file where she now is: her temporary residence is a full jurisdictional anchor, as are the places where she carries on business or is employed. The choice is deliberate access-to-justice engineering: the party least able to travel chooses the forum. The residence must be real, actual living, however recent, not a fiction adopted purely to pick a court, and the ordinary discipline against forum shopping applies.

1.2 The other anchors and interstate incidents

Clause (b) gives the respondent's residence, business or employment, useful where enforcement against him matters most; clause (c) gives the place where the cause of action arose, the shared household and the scenes of violence. Domestic violence is often an interstate story, marriage in one State, matrimonial home in another, refuge in a third, and Section 27 accommodates it: any one anchor suffices, and sub-section (2) makes every order enforceable throughout India, so a protection order obtained in her refuge city binds the respondent in his. Transfer between courts follows the general law: the superior courts' transfer powers under the BNSS, and the Supreme Court's power under Article 139A and Section 406 CrPC analogues, are available where justice requires consolidation.

2. Procedure: Section 28

2.1 The default: criminal procedure, civil substance

Sub-section (1) plugs the Act into the criminal court's operating system, now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: summons and service, attendance, recording of evidence, execution of monetary orders in the manner of maintenance, and the trial of the Act's two offences (breach under Section 31, Protection Officer's default under Section 33). But the substance remains civil for the relief proceedings: the standard is the balance of probabilities, the reliefs are protective and compensatory, and the Supreme Court has described the proceedings as predominantly civil, criminal machinery carrying civil cargo (Kunapareddy v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari, (2016) 11 SCC 774; Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 INSC 734, holding that because the Magistrate remains a criminal court, the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, is available, sparingly).

2.2 The flexibility clause: Section 28(2)

Sub-section (2) is the Act's procedural safety valve: for the Section 12 application and for ex parte orders under Section 23(2), the court may lay down its own procedure. The clause has done real work:

• Amendment of applications was sustained on it: the CrPC has no amendment provision, but the court's power to devise procedure filled the gap (Kunapareddy).
• Evidence on affidavit for interim relief, dispensing with oral evidence at the threshold, flows from it, together with Form III.
• Simplified pleadings: Form II 'or as nearly as possible thereto', documents by list, disclosure affidavits per Rajnesh v. Neha, case management of the sixty-day target.
• Practical accommodations: video-conference appearances, in camera arrangements under Section 16, and protective courtroom logistics.

The limits are implicit: the devised procedure must remain fair to both sides, consistent with the Act and the Rules, and reasoned, flexibility is for furthering the Act's purpose, not for shortcuts around hearing the respondent.

2.3 Evidence and pleadings in practice

Proof follows the civil standard on the relief side: the woman's testimony, the domestic incident report, medical and shelter records, electronic material certified under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and the Rajnesh v. Neha financial affidavits for monetary claims. Cross-examination is available where facts are genuinely disputed; interim orders, however, are routinely made and confirmed on affidavits and documents, the oral trial being reserved for what remains contested at the final stage. For the offences (Sections 31 and 33), the ordinary criminal standard, proof beyond reasonable doubt, applies, with Section 32(2) permitting conviction for breach on the aggrieved person's sole testimony.

3. Related Topics and Provisions