Husband’s Bid To Shift Wife’s DV Case To Family Court Fails: Independent Section 12 Applications Belong Before Magistrates, P&H HC.

Ashutosh Mittal sought transfer of Punita Mittal’s independent application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), pending before a Judicial Magistrate First Class at Gurugram, to the Family Court at Gurugram, where a maintenance petition between the parties was pending.

He argued that the proceedings involved overlapping facts and evidence, and that transfer would avoid multiplicity and conflicting findings. The respondent opposed transfer, contending that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain an independent Section 12 application.

Sections 12 and 27 of the DV Act provide for an application by an aggrieved person before the Magistrate and designate the Magistrate having the prescribed territorial jurisdiction as the forum for an independent application.

Section 28 generally governs the procedure for proceedings under Section 12 and related provisions.

Section 26 permits an aggrieved person to seek reliefs under Sections 18–22 in qualifying proceedings already before a Civil Court, Family Court or Criminal Court; it does not confer jurisdiction to entertain an independent Section 12 application.

Section 7(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act confers the specified maintenance jurisdiction but does not enlarge the Family Court’s jurisdiction to encompass an independent DV Act proceeding.

The Court followed the jurisdictional interpretation in Vineet Ganesh v. Priyanka Vasan and Aseem Khanna v. Akanksha Dua, and treated the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Sections 26 and 27 in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal as relevant; it distinguished the contrary approach in Rohan Shah v. Nishigandha Shah.

The Court held that Section 26’s permission to seek specified DV Act reliefs in proceedings already pending before a Family Court is distinct from jurisdiction to adjudicate an independent application under Section 12.

The pending maintenance case, shared parties, overlapping allegations, possible common evidence, and convenience concerns could not confer jurisdiction absent statutory authority.

Nor did the civil nature of DV Act reliefs alter the forum designated by Sections 12 and 27.

The Court therefore declined to follow the Bombay High Court’s contrary approach in Rohan Shah and applied the reasoning in Aseem Khanna, Vineet Ganesh and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the statutory scheme.

The transfer application was dismissed; the parties were directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class on the date already fixed.

The Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of either pending proceeding.