SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 5521

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, K VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ
VINEETA GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
SUDHA VIG & ANR. – Respondent
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 188/2024|Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 863-864/2023|Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 237/2024|Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 204/2024|Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 272/2024|Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 783/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. Sushil Balwada, Mr. Parivesh Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Parivesh Singh, Dr. Sushil Balwada

The court upheld the legal principle ensuring timely disposal of women’s protection cases while declining requested transfers, emphasizing jurisdictional efficiency.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Transfer petitions filed for transferring various cases to different jurisdictions - Court declined to grant transfer of cases as prayed - Emphasized the need for timely disposal of petitions within a stipulated timeframe - Allowed liberty for appearance through video conferencing. (Paras 1-3)

(B) Court's authority over jurisdictional matters discussed, adhering to principles of efficiency in women's rights cases, ensuring expeditious justice and addressing the needs for mobility in court proceedings. (Para 1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to transfer multiple ongoing cases from various courts in Lucknow to Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, asserting jurisdictional concerns under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.

Findings of Court:
The court found no justifiable grounds to grant the transfer of cases as requested and emphasized timely resolutions per legal mandates.

Issues: Main issues included the appropriateness of case transfers and jurisdictional efficiency in woman-centric legal matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that the jurisdictional court must ensure prompt resolutions of petitions as mandated by the relevant legislation, asserting jurisdictional authority appropriately.

Result: Transfer petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. transfer petitions filed for multiple cases. (Para 1)

O R D E R

1) The present transfer petitions are filed seeking transfer of (i) Criminal Appeal No. 3177 of 2022 titled as Sudha Vig and Another v. Vineeta Gupta and Another pending before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, (ii) Complaint No. 1217 of 2021 titled as Vineeta Gupta v. Sumit Vig & Ors. pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, to the Court of Chief Judicial Signature Not Verified Digitally signed byMagistrate, Lucknow, U.P., (iii) Maintenance Case No. 6 of NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2025.07.10

17:00:08 IST Reason:

2022 titled as Vineeta Gupta & Another v. Sumit Vig pending before the Court of Principal Judge-01, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, U.P. (iv) Criminal Revision No.685 of 2023 titled as Sumit Vig v. State of U.P. and Others pending before Court of Special Judge PC Act-11, District and Session Court, Lucknow to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, (v) Complaint No.5325 of 2021 titled as Sudha Vig and Another v. Vineeta Gupta and Another pending before the Court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Custom), Lucknow, to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, (vi) Criminal Revision No.569 of 2023 titled as Sumit Vig v. State of U.P. and Others pending before the Court of District and Session Judge, Lucknow to the Court of District and Session Judge, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, and (vii) Original Suit No. 1180 of 2022 titled as Sumit Vig v. Vineeta Gupta pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, East Delhi, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.

2) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material placed on record, we are not inclined to grant transfer of the cases as prayed for. Accordingly, the transfer petitions are dismissed.

3) However, taking into consideration the ambit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act , 2005, which mandates disposal of the petition within a time fixed under Section 12 , we direct the jurisdictional Court to dispose of the same within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

4) Liberty is granted to the petitioner to request for appearance through video conferencing.

5) All pending applications stand disposed of.

……………………………………………………., J.

[ M.M. SUNDRESH ]

……………………………………………………., J.

[ K. VINOD CHANDRAN ]

New Delhi;

July 02, 2025.

ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.11 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 188/2024 VINEETA GUPTA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS SUDHA VIG & ANR. Respondent(s)

[MEDIATION REPORT RECEIVED]

(IA No. 47333/2024 - EX-PARTE STAY and IA No. 47334/2024 -

EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

WITH T.P.(Crl.) No. 863-864/2023 (II-C)

(IA No. 231293/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.

231291/2023 - STAY APPLICATION)

T.P.(Crl.) No. 237/2024 (II)

(IA No. 55852/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.

55851/2024 - STAY APPLICATION)

T.P.(Crl.) No. 204/2024 (II)

(IA No. 55124/2024 - EX-PARTE STAY and IA No. 55125/2024 -

EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

T.P.(Crl.) No. 272/2024 (II)

(IA No. 66816/2024 - EX-PARTE STAY and IA No. 66817/2024 -

EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

T.P.(C) No. 783/2024 (XI)

(MEDIATION REPORT HAS BEEN RECEIVED.)

(IA No. 67310/2024 - EX-PARTE STAY and IA No. 67311/2024 -

EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 02-07-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN (PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)

For Petitioner(s) :

Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Parivesh Singh, Adv.

Mr. Nishesh Sharma, AOR (Not present)

For Respondent(s) :

Mr. Parivesh Singh, Adv.

Mr. Nishesh Sharma, AOR (Not present)

Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR UPON hearing the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top