1. First petitioner and first respondent are husband and wife respectively. The second petitioner is the mother-in-law and the third petitioner is the sister-in-law of the first respondent. The first respondent filed O.P.No.300 of 2016 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor seeking reliefs against the petitioners herein.

2. The crux of the allegation of the first respondent was that, she was employed in Doha and had earned substantially. During the matrimonial relationship, first petitioner, who was heavily indebted, was given huge amounts by the first respondent to save him from financial difficulties and for starting a business. It was advanced on a specific understanding that the building covered by document No.1 of 2016 will be assigned to her. While so, first respondent expressed her intention to purchase an item of property. Money was advanced by her to the first petitioner who purchased an item of property comprised in document No.3 of 2016 in his own name. Later, matrimonial disputes arose. She initiated proceedings before the Family Court contending inter alia, that, though both the properties stood in the name of the first petitioner, actual physical possession of the property comprised in document No.1 of 2016 was with her. She also initiated proceedings as M.C.No.14 of 2016 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanassery, invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred as 'DV Act' for brevity) and an interim order was obtained in her favour. Later, she understood that the properties comprised in document Nos.1 of 2016 and 3 of 2016 were assigned to the second respondent herein, who was a close relative of the petitioners herein. Hence, she initiated proceedings against the petitioners and the second respondent before the Family Court as O.P.No.300 of 2016 for a declaration that the assignment deeds executed in favour of both the respondents were null and void and that, she was the owner of the properties comprised therein, or in the alternative, for a decree for Rs.67,00,000/- with interest @18% recoverable from the petitioners. She also sought a decree for Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and the suffering caused.

3. Petitioners have approached this Court contending that, though two separate proceedings are pending before the two different courts, the subject matter involved in both the proceedings are the same, parties are the same and that the pleadings and reliefs sought in Ext.P1, which is the proceeding as O.P.No.300 of 2016 and Ext.P2 proceedings in M.C.No.14 of 2016 are the same. In the light of section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, reliefs covered by Ext.P2 can be granted by the Family Court also. Hence, petitioners sought for transfer of M.C.No.14 of 2016 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanassery to the Family Court, Ettumanoor for trial and disposal along with O.P.No.300 of 2016.

4. Heard both sides and examined the records.

5. The matrimonial relationship, the purchase of properties and the present strained relationship are not in dispute. The pleadings in both proceedings and the reliefs sought are also overlapping. The Family Court is competent to grant the reliefs which are sought in M.C.No.14 of 2016 by virtue of section 26 of the DV Act. The crucial question is whether, in the interest of justice and to protect the parties from facing simultaneous proceedings in two separate forums, both can be tried in the same Court, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions being rendered.

6. It was contended that, section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to seek the reliefs, because Ext.P2 proceedings are pending before the criminal court. Sections 407 and 408 Cr.P.C cannot also be invoked since Ext.P1 proceedings are pending before the civil court. Hence, it was contended that the relief can be sought only by invoking extraord