The Bombay High Court has clarified that the transfer of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, may be ordered not merely on the basis of residence at the time of filing, but to ensure judicial efficiency, prevent conflicting outcomes, and serve the ends of justice when parallel proceedings are pending before a court with specialized jurisdiction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The Applicant, Amit Dattatraya Bandawar, seeks the transfer of P.W.D.V.A. Application No. 53/2021, pending before the 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadchiroli, to the Family Court-5, Nagpur. The proceeding was initiated by the Non-applicant, Mrunali w/o Amit Bandawar, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Applicant contends that the filing at Gadchiroli was motivated by harassment, as both parties and their two minor daughters have been residing in Nagpur since marriage.
Key Facts
- The Applicant and Non-applicant were married and resided together in Nagpur.
- The Non-applicant continues to reside in a house owned by the Applicant in Nagpur.
- Two minor daughters are born of the marriage and reside with the Non-applicant in Nagpur.
- The Non-applicant filed the Domestic Violence Application (P.W.D.V.A. No. 53/2021) in Gadchiroli, claiming residence with her parents.
- Postal endorsement dated 26.09.2025 confirms service of notice on the Non-applicant at her Nagpur address.
- The Non-applicant’s Aadhaar card lists Nagpur as her address.
- No documentary evidence supports her claim of residence with parents in Gadchiroli.
- A divorce petition (Petition No. A-414/2024) filed by the Applicant is pending before the Family Court-5, Nagpur.
Procedural History
- 2021: P.W.D.V.A. Application No. 53/2021 filed before the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Gadchiroli.
- 2024: Divorce petition (A-414/2024) filed by Applicant before Family Court-5, Nagpur.
- 26.09.2025: Notice in the D.V. proceeding served on Non-applicant at Nagpur.
- 23.03.2026: Criminal Application (APL No. 1083 of 2025) filed before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking transfer.
- 23.03.2026: Hearing conducted; Non-applicant failed to appear despite notice.
- 23.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- Argued that the D.V. proceeding was filed at Gadchiroli solely to harass and inconvenience him.
- Emphasized that the Non-applicant’s actual residence is Nagpur, supported by postal service records and Aadhaar details.
- Highlighted that the Family Court in Nagpur is already seized of the divorce petition, making it the natural forum for all related matrimonial disputes.
- Invoked the principle of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and ensuring consistency in adjudication.
For the Non-applicant
- Did not appear or file any response despite service of notice.
- No counter-affidavit or evidence submitted to substantiate claim of residence in Gadchiroli.
Relief Sought
The Applicant sought transfer of P.W.D.V.A. Application No. 53/2021 from Gadchiroli to Family Court-5, Nagpur, to consolidate all matrimonial proceedings before a single forum.
The Legal Issue
Can the High Court, under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C., transfer a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, from a Magistrate’s court to a Family Court, even if the Family Court lacks statutory jurisdiction to try such proceedings, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and promote judicial convenience?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The Applicant relied on the judgment in Rohan Shah v. Nishigandha Shah, 2023 Supreme (Bom) 1459, to argue that while the Domestic Violence Act vests exclusive jurisdiction in Magistrates, the High Court’s power under Section 407 Cr.P.C. is not confined by technical jurisdictional limits. He contended that the High Court may transfer proceedings to a court better suited to adjudicate all related issues - particularly where the same parties, children, and facts are involved - to prevent contradictory findings, reduce litigation costs, and conserve judicial time. He emphasized that the Non-applicant’s residence is in Nagpur, and the divorce petition is already pending there, making transfer essential for coherence.
For the Respondent/State
The Non-applicant did not appear or file any submissions. The State did not oppose the transfer, as no adverse interest was raised. The absence of opposition was noted by the Court as a factor supporting the Applicant’s plea.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined Section 407 of the Cr.P.C., which empowers the High Court to transfer cases where it is necessary for the ends of justice, for the convenience of parties or witnesses, or to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court rejected the notion that transfer is impermissible merely because the Family Court is not statutorily designated to try D.V. cases under the 2005 Act.
"The High Court would have power to transfer the case from the Magistrate to the Family Court whether or not it has jurisdiction to try it to meet the ends of justice, to convenience the parties and more importantly to lead evidence before one Court, specially when the issues may be common, and between the same parties, to save both energy and expense, to save the precious time of Court and prevent conflicting views and multiplicity of proceedings."
The Court noted that the Non-applicant’s claim of residence in Gadchiroli was unsupported by evidence, while her actual residence in Nagpur was confirmed by service records and Aadhaar details. The pendency of the divorce petition before the Family Court in Nagpur created a clear risk of inconsistent findings on issues such as residence, maintenance, custody, and domestic violence. The Court held that the legislative intent behind the Domestic Violence Act - to provide swift, accessible justice - is best served not by rigid territorial adherence, but by pragmatic consolidation of proceedings.
The Court further observed that Section 407 Cr.P.C. is a broad, remedial provision designed to ensure justice, not to be constrained by procedural formalities. The transfer would not deprive the Non-applicant of her statutory rights under the D.V. Act, as the Family Court could still apply its provisions and refer matters to appropriate authorities.
The Verdict
The Application was allowed. The High Court ordered the withdrawal and transfer of P.W.D.V.A. Application No. 53/2021 from the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Gadchiroli, to the Family Court-5, Nagpur. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 10.04.2026. All pending applications in the matter stand disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Transfer Is Permissible Even Without Statutory Jurisdiction
- Practitioners may now invoke Section 407 Cr.P.C. to seek transfer of D.V. proceedings to Family Courts where parallel matrimonial matters are pending, even if the Family Court is not a designated court under the D.V. Act.
- The High Court’s power under Section 407 overrides technical jurisdictional limitations when justice, convenience, and efficiency demand consolidation.
Evidence of Actual Residence Trumps Alleged Place of Filing
- Courts will prioritize verifiable evidence - such as postal service records, Aadhaar details, and residential history - over uncorroborated claims of residence.
- Filing a D.V. petition in a distant location without proof of residence may be viewed as an abuse of process.
Multiplicity of Proceedings Is a Ground for Transfer
- Where divorce, maintenance, custody, and D.V. proceedings are pending before different courts involving the same parties, transfer should be routinely sought to prevent conflicting orders.
- The Family Court, though not a D.V. court, is best positioned to holistically adjudicate all matrimonial disputes.
