Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.403 OF 2023
Sancket Ameet Kamdar ]
Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business ]
Residing at c/o Yash Vora 501, New ]
Madhuvan Building, Saraswati Road, ]
Opp. Gokul Ice Creat, Mumbai-400 054. ] …Applicant.
Through it Public Prosecutor. ]
2. Ekta Ashok Laroiya ]
Aged about 33 years, Occ: Business ]
Last Residing at 403, Jal Classic, ]
Shraddhanand Road, above ]
Syndicate Bank, Vile Parle (East), ]
Mumbai – 400 057. ]
3. Heena Kamdar ]
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Housewife. ]
4. Ameet Kamdar ]
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Service. ]
5. Khusali Kamdar ]
Aged about 61 years, Occ: Service. ]
Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are residing ] at 9th
Siddharth Building, 11th
Road, ]
Near Ramkrishna Mission, Khar ]
West, Mumbai – 400 052. ] … Respondents.
Ms. Firoza Daruwala a/w. Adv. Maanvee Choraria i/by Adv. Nerissa
Almeida for the Applicant.
Ms. Manjula Rao, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. M.A. Amonkar i/by adv.
Rohan Deshmukh for Respondent No.2.
JUDGMENT
1) By this application, the applicant seeks transfer of Domestic Violence complaint being D.V 220 of 2020, filed by Respondent No 2 before the Metropolitan Magistrate 65th Court, Andheri, to the Family Court No.6, Bandra, to be heard along with M.J. Petition No.A-700 of 2021 filed by the Applicant seeking divorce against Respondent No.2.
2) Ms. Daruwala, Learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the Applicant is an Indian domiciled in Maharashtra, while Respondent No.2 is a British citizen currently residing in India.
3) The marriage between the Applicant and Respondent no 2 was solemnized on 7th May 2017 at Mumbai under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. There are no children from the marriage.
4) The Applicant is a partner with ‘Kreative Enterprises,’ engaged in the business of gymnasium equipment. Respondent No.2, who is a psychology graduate from Mithibai College, Mumbai and post graduate in Fashion Designing from London, is presently engaged in business of manufacturing and exporting Indian bridal wear, supplying to local stores in Mumbai as well as to her family business in London, run under the name “Traditions”.
5) After marriage, the couple resided at 403, Jal Classic, Sharaddhanand Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai – 400 057. The said flat belonged to a friend of the Applicant. On account of matrimonial disputes, the Respondent No.2 filed Domestic Violence (D.V.) complaint against the Applicant and Respondent Nos.[3] to 5 under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) on 30th December 2020.
6) Subsequently, on 29th January 2021 the Applicant filed a Divorce Petition against Respondent No.2 before the Family Court No.6 at Bandra, Mumbai.
7) The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that both proceedings are interlinked, arising out of matrimonial relationship, and involve common issues of fact and law. The grounds urged for transfer are: i. Likelihood of a contradictory findings if matters are heard by different different Courts. ii. Parties would be required to lead common evidence, since the facts and the documents are identical. iii. Separate trials would result in wastage of precious judicial time. iv. Separate trials would entail unnecessary expense, duplication of effort, and avoidable delay.
8) In support, reliance is placed on the following decisions: i. Rohit Mohan Pugalia v. Purvi Rohit Pugalia[1]. ii. Khanjan Hitendra Jasani v. Krupali Khanjan Jasani[2]. 2025:BHC-AS: 35753 decided on 19th August 2025. 2024:BHC-AS:36787 dated 4th September 2024. iii. Abhishek Aich v. Reema Talwar Aich[3]. iv. N.C.V Aishawarya v. A. S Saravana Kartik sha[4] v. Rohan Shah v. Nishigandha Shah[5].
9) It is accordingly submitted that the Application should be allowed.
10) Conversely, Ms. Manjula Rao, Learned Senior advocate for the Respondent No.2, opposes the transfer, submitting that Andheri Court is more convenient to the Respondent. Though presently residing in Khar, she states that travel time to Andheri is about 20 minutes as against 30-40 minutes to Bandra, depending on traffic.
11) She submits that owing to heavy pendency before Family Courts, matters there are adjourned for long intervals, whereas the DV complaint before the Magistrate Court is likely to progress faster. According to her the Applicant’s sole intention is to delay the proceedings. Reliance is placed on N.C.V Aishwarya (supra) to emphasise that in transfer applications, the Court must primarily consider the convenience of the wife. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons the application should be dismissed.
12) Having considered the rival submissions, I find that the present case is squarely covered by the principle enunciated in Rohit Pugalia (supra). This Court, while considering N.C.V Aishawarya 2024:BHC-AS:35903 dated 6th September 2024.
2023:BHC-AS:40037. (supra), Sandip Mrinmoy Chakraboarty vs. Reshita Sandip Chakrabarty[6], Rohan Shah (supra) has held that, where proceedings between the same parties, involving common questions of fact and law, are pending before different courts in close proximity, it is desirable that they be tried together by the same judge to avoid multiplicity, conflicting findings, and wastage of judicial time.
13) Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent No. 2 if the D.V. proceedings are transferred to Family Court, Bandra. On the contrary such transfer will subserve the ends of justice.
14) Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
15) Upon receipt of the papers and proceedings, the Family Court, Bandra shall issue notice to the parties, preferably with in three weeks and proceed with the matter expeditiously.
16) The Miscellaneous Civil Application is disposed off in aforesaid terms.
17) All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this Judgment. (KAMAL KHATA, J.)