The Bombay High Court allowed the transfer of domestic violence proceedings from the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgaon, to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The application, filed by the husband, sought to consolidate the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and the pending divorce petition at the Family Court. The Court ruled in favor of the husband, emphasizing the need for efficient justice and avoiding conflicting judgments by consolidating related cases.

1. Parties Involved:

• Applicant: Husband, filed for the transfer of domestic violence proceedings.
• Respondent No.1: Wife, who initiated the domestic violence case.
• Respondent No.2: The mother of the Applicant, involved in a separate civil suit.

2. Legal Proceedings:

• The wife filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Girgaon.
• Simultaneously, four proceedings were pending between the parties:
  1. Marriage Petition No. A-2787 of 2023 (filed by the husband in Family Court, Bandra).
  2. A civil suit filed by the husband's mother in Bombay City Civil Court concerning a flat.
  3. A civil suit by the husband seeking an injunction against the wife from interfering with his Bangalore residence.
  4. The domestic violence complaint filed by the wife at Girgaon Court.

3. Applicant’s Argument (Mr. Kulkarni):

• The husband’s counsel argued for consolidating the DV Act proceedings with the pending marriage petition at the Family Court for efficient adjudication.
• It was highlighted that the wife's domestic violence complaint was filed after the commencement of divorce proceedings, and consolidation would avoid duplication and conflicting outcomes.

4. Respondent’s Opposition (Mr. Davar):

• The wife's counsel opposed the transfer, arguing that proceedings under the DV Act were at an advanced stage and transferring them would cause delay.
• He contended that the DV Act grants the wife the statutory right to choose the forum for her case and that the transfer would infringe on that right.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
  Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 – which deal with various types of reliefs under the DV Act.

• Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
  This section allows courts to transfer cases to another court for the ends of justice.

Ratio Decidendi:

The Court, relying on precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, emphasized that:

1. Efficiency and Avoidance of Conflict:
   In cases where common questions of law and fact arise in matrimonial and domestic violence proceedings, it is desirable to consolidate the matters before a single judge to avoid conflicting judgments and multiplicity of litigation.

2. Convenience and Justice:
   While generally, the wife's convenience is paramount in transfer applications, in this case, both proceedings were in Mumbai (Girgaon and Bandra), minimizing the burden on the wife.

3. Precedent Application:
   The Court applied the principles from N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A. S. Saravana Karthik Sha (AIR 2022 SC 4318), which held that in matrimonial cases, it is just to transfer and consolidate related proceedings to expedite justice.

Conclusion:

The Court allowed the transfer of the domestic violence case to the Family Court at Bandra, where the divorce petition was pending. It rejected the wife’s argument that the transfer would infringe her statutory rights under the DV Act, noting that consolidating both cases would ensure judicial efficiency and prevent inconsistent rulings.

Subject:

• Domestic Violence Act
• Transfer of Cases
• Family Law
• Matrimonial Proceedings
• Code of Civil Procedure Section 24