The court emphasized the civil nature of proceedings under the Domestic Violence act and the jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain complaints under the act of 2005.

JUDGMENT

C.V. Bhadang, J. - By this application, purportedly filed, under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant-husband is seeking transfer of D.V. case No.6 of 2020 from the file of the learned 40th additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Girgaon, Mumbai to the Family Court at Bandra where Petition No.a-156 of 2021 filed by the applicant, for dissolution of marriage and for custody of the children is pending.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the application may be stated thus.

3. The applicant married with the Respondent No.2 on 12 February 2011. They were blessed with twins on 5 September 2014. However, the marriage thereafter ran into rough weather and as a result thereof, the parties are litigating before different Courts.

4. On 13 February 2020 the Respondent No.1-wife filed a complaint under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence act, 2015 ('the act of 2005' for short) against the applicant and the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are the parents of the applicant and which is registered as D.V. Case No.6 of 2020 (D.V. case for short). That case is pending before the learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Girgaon, Mumbai. Indisputably the applicant has filed an application under Section 21 of the said act, in those proceedings, seeking visitation rights which application is said to be pending.

5. The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens act, 2007 against their daughter-in-law i.e. Respondent No.2.

6. On 17 January 2021 the applicant filed Petition No.a-156 of 2021 against the Respondent No.2 for dissolution of marriage, inter alia on the ground of cruelty and for custody of the children. That Petition is pending before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.

7. It may be mentioned that a protection order was passed by the additional Chief learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the D.V. case in favour of the respondent No.2 on 29 February 2020. The respondent No.2 has filed an application claiming breach of the said order against the applicant and the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 which is registered as Summons Case No.869/SS/2020, which is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Girgaon, Mumbai. according to the Respondent No.2 the learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has taken cognizance of the said case on 24 November 2020 and verification of the Respondent No.2 was recorded under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code on 13 august 2021. It is a matter of record that subsequently the learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has passed an order, issuing process against the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 under Section 31 of the act of 2005 on 30 September 2021.

8. For the limited purpose of deciding the present application for transfer, it is not necessary to set out the other cases, where the parties are litigating against each other.

9. according to the applicant, he is required to prosecute the Petition for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court and the D.V. case before the learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate which is causing inconvenience and prejudice. It is submitted that both these cases essentially arise out of the matrimonial discord, between the parties and raise similar/connected issues of law and fact. It is therefore, contended that for the purposes of convenience of the trial and to avoid any conflicting decisions, it is necessary to transfer the D.V. case to the Family Court.

10. The Respondent No.2 has filed a detailed reply and has resisted the application on various grounds.

11. It is contented that this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct such transfer from the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate to the Family Court. It is contended that apart from the D.V. case there is also a summons case No.869/SS/20 initiated by the Respo