1. Petitioners seek transfer of a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, from one jurisdiction to another. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1047
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
James Philip & Ors. – Petitioners
VERSUS
Michelle Vinoy George – Respondents
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 865 of 2024
Decided On : 11-11-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR Mr. Prasad Hegde, Adv. Mr. Balaji A.p., Adv. Mr. Sanjay N. Gandhi, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR Mr. Prasad Hegde, Adv. Mr. Balaji A.p., Adv. Mr. Sanjay N. Gandhi, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court prioritized the respondent's convenience over the petitioners' request for transfer of the domestic violence complaint, allowing for video-conferencing to mitigate hardship.
Headnote:
(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 - Transfer of complaint case - Petitioners sought transfer of a domestic violence complaint from Jabalpur to Kottayam - Court found that transfer would cause more hardship to the respondent - Exemption from personal appearance granted to parents-in-law with permission to appear via video-conferencing. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Transfer of proceedings - The court emphasized that the convenience of the parties must be balanced against the potential hardship to the respondent. (Paras 4-5)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek transfer of the complaint case to a different jurisdiction to avoid personal inconvenience. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Transfer of the complaint would cause greater hardship to the respondent than the inconvenience expressed by the petitioners. (Para 4 )
4. Transfer of proceedings is decided by balancing the relative hardship and inconvenience caused to the parties. (Para 4 )
5. Transfer petition disposed of; parents-in-law granted video-conferencing appearance; other petitioners granted liberty to seek exemption from the trial court. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
6. How does the court determine whether to transfer a complaint case to another jurisdiction?
The court evaluates the relative hardship and inconvenience caused to the parties, refusing transfer if it would result in greater hardship for the respondent than for the petitioners. (Para 4 )
7. What relief can be granted to parties unable to appear personally in a case where transfer is denied?
The court may grant exemptions from personal appearance and permit parties to appear through video-conferencing to ensure the ends of justice are met. (Para 4 , 5 )
ORDER
1. The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law respectively of the respondent. They seek transfer of a Complaint Case No.MJCR/6153/2023 under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kottayam, Kerala.
2. The marriage between petitioner no.3 and the respondent was solemnized on 04.01.2021. They statedly started residing in Bangalore after their marriage. It is alleged that respondent left her matrimonial home and started residing at Jabalpur in October 2022, but she again moved to Bangalore in January 2023. There she is residing in a separate flat. Petitioner No.3 is stated to have filed a divorce petition before the Family Court at Kottayam, but meanwhile the respondent filed the subject-complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners consequently seek transfer thereof to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kottayam, Kerala.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the averments made in the transfer petition.
4. It seems to us that the transfer of complaint is likely to cause more hardship to the respondent as compared to the inconvenience expressed on behalf of the petitioners. As far as petitioner nos.1 and 2, i.e., the parents-in-law of the respondent are concerned, the ends of justice can be adequately met by granting them exemption from personal appearance and permitting them to appear through video-conferencing. Ordered accordingly.
5. The petitioner nos.3 and 4 are granted liberty to approach the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, where the complaint is pending, to exempt them from personal appearance and/or permit them to appear through video-conferencing mode. Such an application, if moved by them, shall be objectively considered by the Court concerned in accordance with law.
6. With the aforementioned directions, the transfer petition stands disposed of.
