under Section 23 of the D.V. Act, 2005. In that application, the Opponent (husband), who is Revision Applicant before me has filed an application dated 12 March, 2024 raising the issue of maintainability and jurisdiction. Before Mr. Naidu would make his submissions he would candidly inform the Court that parents of Respondent wife reside in Panvel and therefore considering their residence to be the temporary residence of the Respondent wife in India, the proceedings may have been filed by her before JMFC Panvel. According to Opponent, the maintainability of the Criminal Misc. Application filed by Applicant (wife) in the Court at Panvel is principally challenged on the ground of jurisdiction. He would submit that if provisions of Section 27 of the Protection of Woman Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are perused by the Court, in the facts of the present case maintainability of the Application in the JMFC Court at Panvel is clearly not maintainable. He would submit that Applicant (wife) has been residing in the United States of America since the tear 2014 and also holds Canadian Citizenship simultaneously. He would inform the Court that Opponent (husband) is also a resident of USA. He would submit that under the three clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the D.V. Act, Applicant cannot make out any case whatsoever for maintainability and, therefore, the application dated 12 March, 2024 was filed by Opponent (husband). He would submit that the application has been decided by the impugned order dated 19
