Dr Shradda Rohit GaikwadversusRohit Lahanu Gaikwad

2026:BHC-AUG:44657


                     IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      17 MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 77 OF 2026

                                 Dr Shradda Rohit Gaikwad
                                          VERSUS
                                   Rohit Lahanu Gaikwad
                                              ...
                     Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ade Ravindra Babusing
                        Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Shitej Surve
                                              ...

                                CORAM       : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                Dated       : September 29, 2026

           ORAL ORDER :

           1.    The applicant-wife has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal

           rights before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad,

           which is registered as Hindu Marriage Petition No.459 of 2025. The

           respondent-husband has filed a petition for divorce before the learned

           Family Court at Aurangabad, which is registered as Hindu Marriage

           Petition No.A-570 of 2025.



           2.    The learned Advocate for the applicant-wife states that, in order

           to avoid any possibility of conflicting decisions, it is desirable that the

           restitution petition filed by her is also transferred to the Family Court

           so that the restitution petition can be heard and decided along with

           the divorce petition filed by the husband. The learned Advocate for the

           respondent-husband does not have any objection to the same.



           3.    In view of the aforesaid, it would be expedient that the

                                             Page 1 of 4
                                                                 17 MCA 77-2026



restitution petition filed by the wife is transferred to the Family Court

at Aurangabad.



4.    The learned Advocate for the respondent-husband states that,

apart from the restitution petition, the wife has also filed a

proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act, being DVA No.279 of

2026, before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class

at Aurangabad. The learned Advocate for the respondent submits

that it would be expedient that the said domestic violence

proceeding is also transferred to the Family Court so that all three

proceedings can be decided simultaneously. The learned Advocate

contends that adopting such a course would save valuable judicial

time of the learned Courts as also of the parties to the litigation.



5.    Learned Advocate for the applicant-wife, however, opposes the

request. It is contended that proceedings under the Domestic

Violence Act are proceedings of a summary nature, which normally

should be allowed to be decided by the Court of the Judicial

Magistrate. The learned Advocate placed his reliance on following

cases :

            (a)   Mohammed Danish Abdul Wahab & Ors.                     vs.
            Farjana Mohammed Danish & Ors (Transfer Petition
            (s) Cri.No.522 / 2023, Dated 24/04/2024),
            (b)   Srikant Shyamanand Chaturvedi                  vs.      Dr.
            Roopali     Chaturvedi             (MCS   No.423/2024,     dated

                                 Page 2 of 4
                                                              17 MCA 77-2026



            18/09/2025),
            (c)   Anuraag Agrawal vs.         Poonam Agrawal Nee
            Mukim, (MCA No.159/2023, dated 09/07/2024).



6.    In reply, the learned Advocate for the respondent-husband

places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay

Suryakant Katkar Vs. Anuskha Vijay Katkar (MCA No.498 of

2022, Bombay Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, decided on 2nd February

2023) and Rohan Shah Vs. Nishi Viyang Shah (MCA No.477 of

2022, Bombay Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, decided on 28th December

2023).



7.    The only contention that is pressed into service by the learned

Advocate for the respondent-husband in seeking transfer of the

Domestic Violence proceeding is that the same would save time and

avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions between the parties. This

contention has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Anurag

Agarwal (supra). This Court has categorically held that the choice of

forum should normally be left to the person who institutes the

proceeding. It is further held that proceedings under the Domestic

Violence Act are proceedings of a summary nature and are designed

to decide matters of moment. It is further held that merely because

there is a possibility of conflict in decisions, the same cannot be a

ground for transfer of every proceeding filed under the DV Act from


                                Page 3 of 4
                                                                 17 MCA 77-2026



the Court of the Judicial Magistrate to the Family Court.



8.       In view of the aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court,

the applicant-wife cannot be forced to prosecute the domestic

violence proceedings before the Family Court contrary to her wish.

The request for transfer of the DV proceeding is, therefore, rejected.



9.       HMP No.459 of 2025 is transferred from the Civil Court,

Aurangabad, to the Family Court, Aurangabad.



10.      The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad, is

requested to assign both the petitions, namely, HMP No.459 of 2025

and HMP No.A-570 of 2025, to the same learned Judge. The learned

Judge to whom the cases are assigned is requested to consider

consolidating both the cases and deciding them together.




                                                  ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )




vj gawade/-.




                                   Page 4 of 4