Vague assertions of residential change without supporting evidence cannot justify the transfer of matrimonial proceedings.

The petitioners (wife and minor daughter) filed a transfer petition seeking to move two cases—one under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence (DV) Act and another under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.—from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (JMIC), Tangmarg, to a competent court in Srinagar

The petitioners claimed they had relocated to Srinagar for safety, and traveling 50 km to Tangmarg caused immense mental and physical stress, especially given their financial constraints and alleged threats from the respondent

The respondents contested the petition, asserting that the petitioners are permanent residents of Baramulla and had failed to provide proof of a Srinagar residence in previous proceedings at Magam

During the pendency of this petition, it was noted that the JMIC Tangmarg had recused himself from the Section 125 Cr.P.C. case, which subsequently moved to JMIC Pattan

1. Whether the petitioners established sufficient grounds, such as residential status or safety threats, to justify the transfer of criminal proceedings to Srinagar under the principles of general convenience and justice

2. Whether the DV Act petition should be transferred to the same court currently hearing the Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition to avoid conflicting proceedings

Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empowers the High Court to transfer cases if an impartial trial cannot be had, if unusual questions of law arise, if transfer tends to the general convenience of parties/witnesses, or if it is expedient for the ends of justice

The court observed that while the petitioners requested a transfer to Srinagar, they failed to provide specific address particulars or any documentary evidence to prove they were actually residing there

The court noted the respondents' contention that the petitioners were attempting to subject them to multiple proceedings and found that moving the case to Srinagar without proof of residence would cause undue inconvenience to both parties

The court recognized a procedural shift: the JMIC Tangmarg had already recused himself from the Section 125 Cr.P.C. matter, causing its transfer to JMIC (Sub Judge) Pattan

To ensure judicial efficiency and prevent fragmented litigation, the court determined that both related matters (DV Act and maintenance) should be heard by the same magistrate

The Court ordered the transfer of the Section 12 DV Act petition from Tangmarg to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge), Pattan, where the Section 125 Cr.P.C. matter is already pending

The parties were directed to appear before the Pattan court