IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the transfer of domestic violence proceedings to the Family Court is justified to ensure a cohesive resolution of related matrimonial issues.

JUDGMENT :

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Davar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Rane, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.

2. Miscellaneous Civil Application seeks transfer of C.C. No.400054/DV/2023, proceeding filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘D.V. Act’) by Respondent – Wife before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court at Girgaon, Mumbai to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai and further direction to club both proceedings together and be heard together. Application is filed by husband.

3. Mr. Davar would submit that he has instructions to oppose the Miscellaneous Civil Application. He would submit that there are four proceedings which are pending between parties. The first is Marriage Petition No.A-2787 of 2023 filed by Applicant – husband in the Family Court at Bandra. The second is a Civil suit seeking declaration against the Respondent – wife filed by mother of the Applicant - husband in the Bombay City Civil Court, at Mumbai with respect to a flat. The third is a Civil suit filed by the husband seeking restraint / injunction against Respondent – wife from interfering with his residence in Bangalore. The fourth is the complaint filed by Respondent – wife under the D.V. Act in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court at Girgaon, Mumbai.

4. He would submit that three proceedings are filed against Respondent – wife as against the complaint under the D.V. Act filed by her against the Applicant. He would submit that the D.V. Act proceedings is at an advanced stage and the concerned Court is considering Interim Application filed by Respondent - wife and next date of hearing is on 10.09.2024. He would submit that on the previous date of hearing it was stated before this Court that the pending Interim Application be decided by the said Court hearing the complaint and only thereafter further proceedings under the D.V. Act be transferred to the Family Court.

5. Another submission made by Mr. Davar to oppose the Miscellaneous Civil Application is on the basis of an incorrect statement made by Applicant in paragraph Nos.3.5 and 3.6 of the Miscellaneous Civil Application which states that Respondent No.1 had appeared through Advocate on 10.11.2023 and it is only merely to harass the Applicant and as a counter blast to the Applicant’s divorce Petition filed in the Family Court that the Respondent has filed the complaint under the D.V. Act.

6. Mr. Kulkarni appearing for Applicant refutes the submissions made by Mr. Davar. He would infact submit that the Marriage Petition was filed on 30.10.2023, which was immediately followed by filing of the suit for injunction by mother of Applicant on 08.11.2023. Thereafter he would submit that on 23.11.2023, statement was made by Respondent before the Bombay City Civil Court that she would not enter into the suit flat in respect of which injunctive relief was prayed. He would next submit that on 24.11.2023, that is immediately on the very next day, Respondent filed a complaint under the D.V. Act before Girgaon Court. Mr. Davar would submit that the statement made by Respondent on 23.11.2023 has been withdrawn by her on 11.12.2023.

7. The sum and substance of the above submissions is that according to Respondent, Application for transfer of proceedings under the D.V. Act to the Family Court at Bandra should not be allowed and both proceedings i.e. Marriage Petition and D.V. Act proceeding should be allowed to be proceeded with in their respective Courts as they are. Mr. Davar has relied upon decision of this Court in the case of Anuraag Agarwal V/s. Poonam Agarwal nee Mukim, Miscellaneous Civil Application No.159 of 2023 dated 09.07.2024. (Coram : Arun R. Pednekar, J.) to contend that this Court has taken cognizance of various previous decisions passed by this Court as also the Supreme Court and has infact carved out a principle with respect to question of