Bombay High Court

SUNIL LAXMANDAS NARSINGHANIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposal: Partly Allowed

Holding

The Court held that, since both parties reside in Kolhapur and transfer would not cause inconvenience, the PWDVA application and appeal pending in Sangli should be transferred to the Kolhapur courts.

Summary

The applicant, Sunil Laxmandas Narsinghani, sought transfer of a Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) application (No. 125 of 2022) and a related appeal (No. 35 of 2024) from the 5th JMFC Court and Additional Sessions Judge in Sangli to the corresponding courts in Kolhapur, arguing that the respondent resides in Kolhapur and that transfer would not inconvenience either party. The respondent confirmed residence in Kolhapur and agreed to a payment of Rs. 2,000 per court appearance by the applicant. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik, the court found that transfer was appropriate given the parties’ residence and the need for expeditious disposal of the pending domestic‑violence proceedings. The court ordered the transfer of both the application and the appeal to Kolhapur courts, directed the applicant to pay the stipulated amount to the respondent for each attendance, and instructed the Kolhapur JMFC to expedite the case within one year. The remaining prayers were rejected.

Issues considered

Whether the PWDVA application and appeal pending in Sangli courts should be transferred to Kolhapur courts on the ground of parties' residence and convenience
Whether the transfer would cause any inconvenience to the parties
Whether the court can direct payment of expenses to the respondent for attending proceedings
Whether the court can order expedited disposal of the domestic‑violence proceedings

Legislation cited

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Subjects

Transfer of jurisdiction
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
Domestic violence proceedings
Expedited disposal
Court fees
Residence of parties

Judgment

6-APL-949-2025 (CR).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 949 OF 2025

Sunil Laxmandas Narsinghani .....Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .....Respondents

...
Mr. Ajeet Manwani a/w Mr. Amol Thorat, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Nagesh Chavan with Ms. Ankita Chindage, Advocate for the Respondent
No.1.
Mr. Anand Salgaonkar, APP for Respondent-State.
...

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026
PER COURT :

1. The Applicant seeks transfer of PWDVA Application No.125 of

2022 pending before the learned 5th JMFC Court at Sangli to the learned

JMFC Court at Kolhapur, as well as the PWDVA Appeal No. 35 of 2024

pending before the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, to the learned

Sessions Court, Kolhapur and also prayed to expedite both the proceedings.

2. Heard the learned Advocate for both the parties and perused the

record.

3. It is pertinent to note that, on query, the learned Advocate for

Respondent No. 2 replied that she is residing in Kolhapur as well as Sangli.

Suresh Page 1 of 4
6-APL-949-2025 (CR).odt

4. It further appears from the record that the Applicant in this

Application has shown the address of Respondent No. 2 as she is residing in

Kolhapur, and notice was served upon her at the said address in Kolhapur on

30th January 2026. Similarly, Respondent No. 2 has filed her reply to the

Application on 23rd July 2026, wherein, in paragraph 1 and in the verification

clause, she has categorically stated that she is residing at Gopal Niwas, Near

Haridev Market, Gandhi Nagar, Tal. Karveer, District Kolhapur. This fact

itself indicates that Respondent No. 2 is also residing in Kolhapur. However,

both the PWDVA proceedings and the Appeal under the Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “PWDVA Act”) are pending in

Sangli. Therefore, the Applicant has moved this Application seeking transfer

of both proceedings from the Sangli Courts to the Kolhapur Courts.

5. The learned Advocate for the Applicant, on instructions,

submitted that the Respondents undertake to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to

Respondent No. 2 towards the expenses for attending the Court proceedings

at Kolhapur, which the learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 does not

dispute.

6. Thus, having considered the above facts and submissions, and

the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya

Vs. A. S. Saravana Karthik Sha1, in my view, it would be appropriate to
1 AIR Online 2022 SC 1268

Suresh Page 2 of 4
6-APL-949-2025 (CR).odt

transfer the PWDVA Application No. 125 of 2022, pending before the

learned 5th JMFC, Sangli, as well as PWDVA Appeal No. 35 of 2024,

pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, to the learned

JMFC and Sessions Court at Kolhapur, respectively. It would not cause any

inconvenience to the parties, as both parties reside in Kolhapur.

7. Similarly, the learned Advocates for the Petitioner and

Respondent No. 2 jointly requested that the learned JMFC be directed to

expedite the DV proceedings pending before the Learned JMFC.

8. Consequently, the Application is partly allowed as under.

9. The PWDVA Application No.125 of 2022, pending before the

learned 5th JMFC, Sangli, is hereby transferred to the learned JMFC Court at

Kolhapur. Similarly, PWDVA Appeal No. 35 of 2024, pending before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, is hereby transferred to the

learned Sessions Court at Kolhapur.

10. Needless to clarify that, on physically attending the Court

proceedings in PWDVA Application No.125 of 2022, by Respondent No. 2,

the Applicant shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to her towards expenses for

attending the proceedings at Kolhapur Court on each date, failing which the

Applicant’s right to proceed in the matter shall stand forfeited. The Applicant

shall pay the said amount to Respondent No. 2 on the same day by any mode.

Suresh Page 3 of 4
6-APL-949-2025 (CR).odt

11. It further appears that the DV proceedings have been pending

since 2022. Therefore, considering the said fact, the learned JMFC is directed

to expedite the said Application and dispose of the same as early as possible

within one year from the date of receipt of the record of the proceedings from

the Sangli Court. The remaining prayers in the Application are rejected.

12. Inform both the concerned Courts accordingly.

13. The Miscellaneous Civil Application stands disposed of

accordingly.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

Suresh Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…