S.B. Shukre, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.
(2.) This revision application questions the legality and correctness of the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 297 of 2015, upsetting the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, FC, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3538 of 2014. The learned Magistrate has held that the Court at Nagpur has no jurisdiction to try the petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the "D.V. Act").
(3.) Shri Wakode, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is patently illegal and perverse and whereas Shri Mohta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is perfectly legal and proper. Shri Mohta submits that in any case, the learned Magistrate could not have dismissed the petition on the preliminary objection, without giving any opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. In support, he places his reliance upon the cases of Vijay Sudhakar Patil v. Asha Vijay Patil, 2015 1 MhLJ(Cri) 43; Ramesh a/o Mohanlal Bhgutada, Advocate & anr v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 6 MhLJ 167, and Vikas Rastogee v. State of U. P. & anr, 2014 2 DMC 470 (All).;