The Act provides for a remedy under civil law to protect women from domestic violence and aims at providing speedy remedy to victims, with specific provisions for time-bound disposal and enabling procedures for applications under Section 12.

The petitioner in the above Criminal Original Petition is the husband of the respondent herein. The respondent herein has filed M.C.No.57 of 2008 before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance and she has also filed M.P.No.198 of 2008 claiming interim maintenance. Subsequently the respondent has also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, and the same has been taken on file as M.P.No.1038 of 2008. The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the husband-the petitioner herein for transferring M.P.No.1038 of 2008 from the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai to the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with M.C.No.57 of 2008 and M.P.No.198 of 2008 on the ground that the respondent herein is seeking monetary reliefs before both the forums and the issues to be decided in both the cases are same and if both the cases are heard by different courts it may lead to delivery of conflicting judgments and multiplicity of proceedings.

2. The transfer sought for by the petitioner is strongly opposed by the respondent herein on the ground that the monetary relief claimed by the respondent in the petition filed before the Family Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the monetary relief claimed by her under the provisions of the Act are different since the respondent has claimed several other reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act which reliefs are beyond the scope of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Further the objection raised by the respondent is that the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Act and pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate cannot be transferred to the Family Court since there is no provision in the Act or in the Cr.P.C. to order such transfer.

3. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 26 of the Act any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil Court, family Court or a criminal Court; as per Section 28 of the Act all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and as per Section 28 (2) of the Act, the Court can lay down its own procedure; proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Cr.P.C. are summary proceedings; the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be transferred to the file of the Magistrate Court in view of Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act; in the light of the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Act a proceeding under Section 18, 19 and 20 can also be tried by the Family Court and therefore there is no legal bar for transferring the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Act before the Magistrate to the Family Court. Learned counsel further submitted that in both the proceedings the cause of action, issues and parties are common and the reliefs sought for are also common and therefore both the proceedings can be disposed of if both the cases are tried together.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the following observations namely:-

“there is no provision anywhere in the act which permits or authorizes transfer of a petition which is pending before the Magistrate to any other Court. Powers under the Cr.P.C. do not evidently clothe the superior Courts with power to transfer pending before a criminal Court to any other Civil Court”.

made by the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the decision reported in 2007 Crl.L.J. 2604 (Kerala) = 2007 (2) MLJ 209 (M.A. Mony v. M.P. Leelamma and Anr.) may