Omkar Sitaram ParabversusDeepali Omkar Parab

                                                                        502. MCA 230-2026 (Prod).doc

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                               MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 230 OF 2026

                      Omkar Sitaram Parab & ors.                                  ..Applicants

                                Versus
ANAND
SUDHAKAR              Deepali Omkar Parab                                         ..Respondent
SUDAME
Digitally signed by
ANAND SUDHAKAR
SUDAME
Date: 2026.07.31
                      Ms. Anita Murgude i/b. Ms. Ranjana Todankar, Advocates, for the
10:50:22 +0530
                      Applicants
                      Mr. Bhushan Walimbe a/w. Mr. Mayank Tripathi i/b. Mr. Shashank P.
                      Borade, Advocates, for the Respondent

                                                 CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

                                                 DATE       : 27 JULY, 2026
                      P. C.

                      1.      Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board.

                      2.      By the present transfer Application, the Applicant, who is the

                      husband of the Respondent – wife is seeking transfer of the D. V.

                      proceeding filed by the Respondent – wife before the J.M.F.C., Mulund

                      to the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

                      3.      It is the case of the Applicant – husband that he has already filed

                      an Application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for

                      restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

                      Transferring the D.V. proceedings filed by the Respondent-wife to the

                      Family Court in Bandra, Mumbai, will save time and money.



                      Anand                             1 of 4
                                                 502. MCA 230-2026 (Prod).doc

4.      The Applicant – husband claims that his salary is Rs.2,00,000/-

per month. However, the Respondent – wife submits that the Applicant

earns Rs.4,00,000/- per month.

5.      Mr. Walimbe, learned Counsel for the Respondent – wife submits

that as on date, the Applicant – husband is not paying any maintenance

to the Respondent – wife. The Applicant is working in Merchant Navy

and is drawing huge salary per month. The Respondent – wife is

staying at Mulund and the D. V. proceeding is filed before the J.M.F.C.,

Mulund. It will be inconvenient for the Respondent – wife to attend the

Court proceeding at Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai which is on the

Western line. The Applicant - husband works in the Merchant Navy, so

it makes no difference whether he attends Court at Bandra or Mulund.

6.      The Supreme Court in the case of N. C. V. Aishwarya vs. A. S.

Sarvana Karthik Sha, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 has held

that while deciding transfer proceedings, convenience of the wife has

to be taken into consideration. Paragraph 9 of the said Judgment reads

as under :-

        “9.    The cardinal principle for exercise of power under
        Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends
        of justice should demand transfer of the suit, appeal or
        other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts
        are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts
        have to take into consideration the economic soundness of
        both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their
        behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the

Anand                            2 of 4
                                                           502. MCA 230-2026 (Prod).doc

        marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of
        both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under
        whose protective umbrella they are seeking their
        sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic
        paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s
        convenience which must be looked at while considering
        transfer.”

                                                        (emphasis supplied)

7.      In the Judgment of Misc. Civil Application No. 239 of 2024

(Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage vs. Abhijeet Narayan Kandage & Ors.) I have

held that reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Domestic Violence Act,

can even be sought before the Civil Court, Family Court, under the

provisions of Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act. Paragraphs 15,

15.1, and 15.2 read as under:

              15)     Considering the Sections of D.V. Act, and the Judgments discussed in
              the above paragraphs, it becomes evident that Family Court has power to
              decide complaint which seeks relief under Sections 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act.
              Hence in my opinion, transfer of proceedings from Magistrate’s Court to
              Family Court pertaining to relief claimed under Section 18 to 22 of the D.V.
              Act can be allowed. However, if a transfer proceedings is not a bonafide one,
              then on merits such a transfer on case to case basis can be rejected. One has
              to also keep in mind the stage of the proceedings of which transfer is
              sought.

              15.1) Section 26 of D.V. Act, refers to only reliefs sought under Section 18
              to 22. Therefore, application/complaint seeking relief under any other
              section of D.V. Act viz. Section 31, etc. would not be maintainable before
              Family Court.

              15.2) So also, one has to also keep in mind who is coming to the court for
              the transfer of the proceedings, whether it is the Wife or the Husband or any
              other party. Since a choice is given to the aggrieved person under the D.V.
              Act to choose the forum for reliefs sought under Section 18 to 22, (i.e.)
              before the Magistrate under Section 12 or to the civil court, family court or
              criminal court under Section 26, such transfer if sought by a Wife,
              considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V.
              Aishwarya (supra) will have to be considered favourably.
                                                                (Emphasis supplied)


Anand                                 3 of 4
                                               502. MCA 230-2026 (Prod).doc



8.      Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case

of N. C. V. Aishwarya (supra) and the view taken by this Court in the

case of Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage (supra), I do not find any merit in the

present transfer Application and the same stands rejected.


                                                 (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)




Anand                          4 of 4