The Punjab & Haryana High Court has affirmed that in domestic violence matters involving minor children, the paramount consideration is the child’s best interest and the need to consolidate all related proceedings in a single forum. This judgment provides critical guidance on when transfer applications under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act should be granted, particularly where multiple litigations are pending across jurisdictions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Ria, is the daughter-in-law of the respondent, Shashi Anand. Ria was married to Vidhan Bharat Raj Anand, the respondent’s son, on 04.12.2022. From this marriage, a daughter was born on 30.08.2023, who has remained in Ria’s sole care and custody since birth. The marital relationship has broken down, leading to multiple legal proceedings across different courts.
Key Facts
- The respondent, Shashi Anand, filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (COMA/138/2024) on 31.01.2024 in the Family Court, Amritsar.
- Ria, the applicant, is the respondent in that petition.
- Ria herself has filed a parallel petition under Section 12 of the same Act in the Family Court, Jalandhar, naming the respondent as an accused.
- Ria has also filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (MNT125/482/2023) in Jalandhar, where her husband is appearing.
- An FIR has been lodged in Jalandhar, with a challan filed and the case at the stage of framing of charges; the accused are the respondent’s son and husband.
- The child, aged approximately 3 years as of the judgment date, has never been in the care of the respondent or her son.
- Ria is a B.Ed. graduate but is currently unemployed and dependent on her parental family for support.
- The respondent claims advanced age and serious medical conditions: knee replacement surgery, hypertension, and diabetes; her husband underwent heart surgery.
- Medical records (Annexures R-1 and R-2) were submitted by the respondent to substantiate her health condition.
Procedural History
- 31.01.2024: Respondent filed DV petition (COMA/138/2024) in Family Court, Amritsar.
- 29.04.2026: Applicant filed transfer application (TA-1350-2024) before the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking transfer of the Amritsar petition to Jalandhar.
- 29.04.2026: Hearing concluded; judgment delivered orally by Justice Archana Puri.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant (Ria):
- All four litigations arising from the marital breakdown are pending in Jalandhar.
- The child is in her custody and requires consistent care.
- Transferring the Amritsar petition to Jalandhar will avoid multiplicity of proceedings, reduce harassment, and ensure uniform adjudication.
- The respondent has already appeared in the Jalandhar DV petition and is familiar with the local court.
For the Respondent (Shashi Anand):
- She is elderly and suffers from serious health conditions.
- Traveling to Jalandhar for court appearances would cause undue hardship.
- The petition was filed in Amritsar for convenience and should remain there.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought transfer of the DV petition (COMA/138/2024) from the Family Court, Amritsar, to the Family Court, Jalandhar, to consolidate all proceedings and protect the child’s welfare.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, in a domestic violence matter involving a minor child and multiple pending proceedings in one jurisdiction, the court should transfer a petition filed in another jurisdiction to ensure the child’s best interest and procedural efficiency.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the best interest of the child is the overriding consideration under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the Juvenile Justice Act. With three other litigations - including a Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition and a criminal case - pending in Jalandhar, transferring the Amritsar petition would prevent contradictory orders, reduce litigation burden on the child’s primary caregiver, and promote judicial economy. The respondent had already participated in the Jalandhar DV proceeding, indicating her familiarity with the forum.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent’s counsel contended that the elderly petitioner, suffering from chronic illnesses and post-surgical recovery, would face severe hardship in traveling to Jalandhar. Medical documents were submitted to substantiate this claim. The respondent argued that convenience of the elderly petitioner should not be disregarded, and that the petition was validly filed in Amritsar where she resides.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that while convenience of the woman is often prioritized in domestic violence matters, it is not an absolute rule. The court must balance the interests of both parties, particularly when both are women and one is elderly and infirm.
"The most weighing and relevant factor, to be considered in the case in hand, is about the daughter born from the estranged marriage. Ever since birth, she is in the care and custody of the applicant."
The Court emphasized that the child, aged only three, requires constant maternal care and that the applicant has no independent means of support. The presence of three other related proceedings in Jalandhar - two civil and one criminal - created a clear nexus with that forum. The respondent had already appeared in the Jalandhar DV petition, demonstrating her capacity to litigate there.
The Court further noted that the respondent’s health concerns, while valid, could be mitigated through virtual appearance, a practice increasingly recognized by courts. The court explicitly stated that the respondent retains the right to apply for virtual participation whenever required.
The principle of consolidating related matters to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure coherent adjudication was applied. The Court held that the convenience of the child and the need to avoid conflicting orders outweighed the logistical inconvenience to the respondent, especially since a practical remedy (virtual appearance) was available.
The Verdict
The transfer application was allowed. The petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (COMA/138/2024), filed by Shashi Anand in the Family Court, Amritsar, is transferred to the Family Court, Jalandhar. The record is to be sent by the Amritsar court to the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, who shall assign the matter to the Family Court, Jalandhar. Both parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Jalandhar, within one month from 29.04.2026. The respondent may apply for virtual appearance in future hearings, and the court shall consider such applications on merit.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Best Interest of the Child Overrides Convenience of Elderly Parties
- Practitioners must prioritize the child’s physical and emotional needs when seeking or opposing transfer in DV matters.
- A child’s primary caregiver’s inability to work or lack of independent income strengthens the case for transfer.
- Age or medical condition of the respondent does not automatically bar transfer if the child’s welfare is at stake.
Consolidation of Related Proceedings Is a Ground for Transfer
- When multiple civil, criminal, or maintenance proceedings arise from the same matrimonial breakdown, courts should favor consolidation in one forum.
- Appearance by a party in a related proceeding in the target jurisdiction is a strong indicator of forum suitability.
- Avoiding contradictory orders on maintenance, custody, or protection is a compelling judicial policy.
Virtual Appearance Is a Viable Alternative to Physical Presence
- Courts are expected to permit virtual appearances for elderly or infirm parties upon application.
- This judgment sets a precedent for integrating technology to ensure access to justice without compromising procedural fairness.
- Advocates should routinely request virtual participation in transfer applications involving elderly litigants.
