Rohan Anant PakhurdeversusMadhura Mohan Rane

                             KVM
                                                                     1/4
                                                                                           48 - MCA 457 OF 2025.doc



          Digitally signed
          by KANCHAN
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD   MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
        2026.01.31
          13:17:24 +0530
                                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 457/2025

                             ROHAN ANANT PAKHURDE                                      ….. APPLICANT

                                       VERSUS

                             MADHURA MOHAN RANE                                        ….. RESPONDENT

                             Adv. Akram Kapoor a/w. Adv. Krisha Jariwala for the Applicant.

                                                                  CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

                                                                  DATE      : 28 JANUARY, 2026

                             P.C. :-

                             1)             Service report is awaited.        Stand over to 25 February,

                             2026.

                             2)             At this stage, at post lunch, learned advocate Mr.Akram

                             Kapoor learned advocate appearing for the applicant mentioned this

                             matter and insisting to hear the matter and granting ad-interim relief.

                             3)             This Miscellaneous Civil Application was filed on 12

                             December, 2025, and on 16 December 2025, the matter was on board

                             before this Court when after hearing Mr.Ashraf Kapoor, this Court had

                             issued notice to the respondent. The said order reads as under :-

                                       1)          It is the case of the applicant, the husband of the
                                       respondent that the marriage between the parties lasted only for a
                                       period of six months. There are no issues born out of this
KVM
                                      2/4
                                                             48 - MCA 457 OF 2025.doc

       marriage. Both the parties are from Mumbai City. However, for the
       purpose of work, the applicant is staying in Pune and the
       respondent is working in the Reserve Bank of India at its Bangalore
       Office. The applicant has filed divorce proceedings before the
       Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai and the respondent has filed the
       DV proceedings before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at
       Vikhroli. He is seeking transfer of the DV proceedings from
       Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vikhroli to the Family Court at
       Bandra, Mumbai, and to be heard alongwith the divorce
       proceedings of the applicant husband.

       2)          Issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 27
       January, 2026.

       3)            Apart from the Court notice, the applicant is
       permitted to serve the respondent by private notice, by all
       permissible modes of service and file affidavit of service before the
       next date of the hearing.



4)           A statement was made by Mr. Ashraf Kapoor that the

respondent is working in Bangalore City. Today, a statement is made

by advocate Mr.Akram Kapoor on instructions of his client who is

present in Court that the respondent is working in Mumbai City from

March 2025.

5)           Therefore, admittedly, a wrong statement was made by

advocate Mr.Ashraf Kapoor on 16 December, 2025 pursuant to which I

had issued notice to the respondent.

6)           In the present proceedings, the applicant who is the

husband of the respondent, is seeking transfer of D.V. proceedings

filed by the respondent before the 34th Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
KVM
                                         3/4
                                                                  48 - MCA 457 OF 2025.doc


Vikhroli to the Family Court at Bandra. The only reason for seeking a

transfer is that there is possibility of contradictory view taken by the

Court while deciding the DV proceedings and the Court while hearing

the divorce proceedings.

7)            I have already held in Misc. Civil Application No. 239 of

2024 (Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage vs. Abhijeet Narayan Kandage & Ors.)

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

even be sought by aggrieved person before the Family Court under the

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

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.

      15.2) 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]

8)            While deciding the judgment of Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage

(supra), I have considered all the judgments delivered by the learned
KVM
                                 4/4
                                                     48 - MCA 457 OF 2025.doc


Single Judge of this Court.

9)          As held by me in case of Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage (supra)

and considering the facts of the present case, where the learned

advocate appearing for the applicant has made false statement that

the respondent is working in Bangalore, while today they have

admitted that from March 2025, she is staying in Mumbai.

10)         In view of the same, the present Miscellaneous Civil

Application stands rejected with cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid within

a period of four weeks to the respondent.



                                            (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)