IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Ratio Decidendi – When a particular proposition of law can be considered to be ratio decidendi, one has to decide the same by considering as to what happens to final conclusion made in the case after such a proposition of law is inversed or removed from text of judgment as if it never forms part of judgment.
(2) Transfer of proceedings can be allowed when there is possibility of conflicting verdicts by two courts.

JUDGMENT

Both these miscellaneous civil applications involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, are decided by this common judgment.

2. For convenience, facts in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.498 of 2022 are preferred. The applicant-husband seeks transfer of proceedings filed by the wife under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereafter “DV Act”, for short) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cantonment Court, Pune to the Family Court, Pune where the applicant has filed a petition for divorce.

3. The husband has, therefore, filed present application to transfer proceedings under the DV Act to the Family Court, Pune, on the ground that there is the possibility of conflicting verdicts by two different Judges; primary evidence in both cases would be same; if both the proceedings are conducted separately, the efficacy of cross-examination would be undermined; transfer will reduce the burden of two different Courts resulting in saving of judicial time.

4. Respondent no.1/wife has filed an affidavit disputing the applicant’s contention that there is possibility of conflicting verdict. It is stated that the apprehension of efficacy of cross-examination is misplaced. The DV Act application aims to provide speedy remedy to the wife, and such transfer will take away the right of speedy justice and the statutory right of appeal.

5. Mr. Abhijit Sarwate, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that it is a consistent view of this Court that the proceedings under DV Act can be transferred to the Family Court. See Sandip Mrinmoy Chakrabarty v. Reshita Sandip Chakrabarty, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2709; Santosh Machindra Mulik v. Mohini Mithu Choudhari, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13101; Hitesh Prakashmalji Mehta v. Aashika Hitesh Mehta, Misc. Civil Application (St.) No.788 of 2020 decided on 28th September 2020; Harsherekha Ajay Garg & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.1817 of 2022 decided on 26th September 2022; Sanket Sanjeev Khanolkar v. Surabhi Sanket Khanolkar, 2021 SCC Online Bom 5234; and Minoti Subhash Anand v. Subhash Manoharlal Anand, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6113.

6. According to him, the objection of taking away substantive appeal has been considered by this Court in Santosh Machindra Mulik (supra) to hold that no party can be said to be losing his/her right of appeal; what is lost is a further right of revision. He also invited my attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sandip Mrinmoy Chakrabarty v. Reshita Sandip Chakrabarty (Family Court Appeal No.31 of 2020 decided on 26th February 2021) wherein this Court while considering an appeal arising out of judgment deciding proceedings under DV Act and Family Courts Act, 1984 held that right under section 29 of the Family Court Act is not taken away.

7. Per contra, Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, learned advocate for the respondent, submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court in Abhijeet Prabhakar Jail v. Manisha Abhijeet Jail & Anr., reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1206 rejected an application to transfer proceedings under the provisions of DV Act holding that such transfer would take away statutory right under section 29 of the DV Act and also takes away right of speedy disposal conferred under the DV Act. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Lala Shri Bhagwan & Anr. v. Shri Ram Chand & Anr. reported in AIR 1965 SC 1767, he submitted that the subsequent judgments of this Court referred above are in ignorance of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Abhijeet Prabhakar Jail (supra) and, therefore, instead of embarking upon the legality of the view taken by the learned Single Judge, it would be appropriate to place the papers before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constitution of Larger Bench to examine the question. In support of his contention that the right of speedy justice is facet under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, he relied on the Apex Co