Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Brijesh Sethi, J.
Mohit Mehta - Appellant
Versus
Nayanika Thakur - Respondent
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 30 of 2019
Decided On : 24-11-2020
Transfer of Criminal Cases - Jurisdiction of Family Court - PWDV Act, 2005 - [TRANSFER OF CRIMINAL CASES] - [JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURT] - [Section 6 HMA & G. Act 1956, Section 13(1)(ia) HM Act, Section 13(1)(ib) HM Act, Section 498A/406/34 IPC, Section 12 DV Act, Section 26 PWDV Act] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Family Court in relation to cases filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) and the transfer of criminal cases. It highlighted the provisions of Section 26 of the PWDV Act and emphasized that while relief under Sections 18 to 21 of the PWDV Act can be sought in civil, family, or criminal courts, an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act can only be filed before a Magistrate. The court also clarified that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to try criminal cases under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, as it can only be tried by a learned Magistrate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the transfer of criminal cases and cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) from different courts to the Family Court where other related cases were pending. The respondent contested the jurisdiction of the Family Court to deal with matters pertaining to the Domestic Violence Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while relief under Sections 18 to 21 of the PWDV Act can be sought in civil, family, or criminal courts, an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act can only be filed before a Magistrate. It also concluded that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to try criminal cases under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the Family Court in relation to cases filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) and the transfer of criminal cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The key legal principle established is that while relief under Sections 18 to 21 of the PWDV Act can be sought in civil, family, or criminal courts, an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act can only be filed before a Magistrate. Additionally, the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to try criminal cases under Section 498A/406/34 IPC.
Final Decision: The transfer petition was dismissed, and the cases were not transferred to the Family Court where other related cases were pending.
JUDGMENT
Brijesh Sethi, J. - This is a petition for transfer of criminal cases bearing no. CC/6527/2019, under Section 498A/406/34 IPC pending in the court of learned MM, South-West District, Dwarka Courts and cases bearing no. CC/31435/16, CC/15584/17 and CC/2353/19 pending in the court of Ms. Prabh Deep Kaur, learned MM, Patiala House Courts to the court of Family Courts, Patiala House Courts where cases bearing no. HMA 303/2018 filed under Section 13(1)(ia) (for Divorce), HMA no. 315/2018 filed under Section 13(1)(ib), GS no. 47/2018 and GS 48/2018 between the same parties are pending.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner and respondent were married in the year 2002 and out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born out on 17.12.2008. It is submitted that due to some matrimonial dispute, petitioner and respondent are living separately since 14.06.2014 and following cases are pending between both the parties:-
| S. No. | Case No. | Case under Section | Parties | Court where case is pending |
| 1 | GP No. 47/2018 | Section 6 HMA & G. Act 1956 | Nayanika Thakur (wife) v. Mohit Mehta | Ms. Swarana Kanta Mehra, learned Presiding Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts. |
| 2 | GP No. 48/2018 | Section 6 HMA & G. Act 1956 | Mohit Mehta vs. Nayanika Thakur | Ms. Swarana Kanta Mehra, learned Presiding Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts. |
| 3 | HMA No. 303/2018 | Section 13(1) (ia) HM Act. | Mohit Mehta vs. Nayanika Thakur | Ms. Swarana Kanta Mehra, learned Presiding Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts. |
| 4 | HMA no. 315/2018 | Section 13(1)(ib) HM Act | Mohit Mehta vs. Nayanika Thakur | Ms. Swarana Kanta Mehra, learned Presiding Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts. |
| 5 | CC No. 31435/2016, CC No. 2353/219 filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by petitioner and CC no. 15584/2017 for Execution | Section 12 DV Act. | Nayanika Thakur(wif e) v. Mohit Mehta & Ors. | Ms. Prabhdeep Kaur, learned MM, Patiala House Courts. |
| 6 | CC No. 6527/2019 | Section 498A/506/34 IPC | State v. Mohit Mehta & ors. | Ms. Shivani Chauhan, learned MM, SW District, Dwarka Courts. |
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since four matters are already pending before the Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, the matters bearing no. CC/6527/2019, under Section 498A/406/34 IPC pending in the court of Ms. Shivani Chauhan, learned MM, South-West District, Dwarka Courts and cases bearing no. CC/31435/16, CC/15584/17 and CC/2353/19 pending in the Court of Ms. Prabhdeep Kaur, learned MM, Patiala House Courts be also transferred to the Family Court where case bearing no. HMA 303/2018 filed under Section 13(1)(ia) (for Divorce), HMA no. 315/2018 filed under Section 13(1)(ib), GS no. 47/2018 and GS no. 48/2018 between the same parties are pending as this will not only save money and effort but also save time and help in expeditious disposal of the matters as similar facts and evidence are required to show the contradictions, perjury and false statements etc.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has relied upon the following case law:-
a. Social Action forum for Manav Adhikar and Anr vs. Union of India, W.P.(Civil) no. 73/2015;
b. Mr. Santosh Machindra Mulik v. Mrs. Mohini Mithu Choudhari, Miscl. Civil Application no. 64 of 2019.
5. Assailing the allegations of petitioner, respondent has filed reply and stated that Family court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter pertaining to Domestic Violence Act in view of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. In this regard, learned counsel for the respond
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
