Family Court Competent To Hear Domestic Violence Cases Where Reliefs Overlap With Matrimonial Proceedings: Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling delivered by Justice Kamal Khata, allowed a transfer application in Rohit Mohan Pugalia v. Purvi Rohit Pugalia (Misc. Civil Application No. 367 of 2024). The Court directed that a domestic violence case pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Bandra be transferred to the Family Court at Bandra so that it may be heard along with ongoing matrimonial proceedings between the same parties.

The judgment emphasised that when parties are litigating over identical issues in different forums, “to avoid conflicting findings and duplication of evidence, it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings be heard together by a single forum.”

The husband, Rohit Pugalia, moved the High Court seeking transfer of DV Case No. 62/DV/2024 filed by his wife before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Bandra. Parallel matrimonial proceedings were already pending before the Family Court, Bandra, where the wife had filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, while the husband had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and custody of their minor daughter.

The husband contended that the reliefs sought in the domestic violence case—including custody, protection, residence, and financial compensation—substantially overlapped with the issues already raised before the Family Court. He urged that two parallel proceedings would lead to inconsistent orders, wastage of resources, and unnecessary trauma to both sides.

The wife opposed the application, relying upon the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Anurag Agarwal v. Poonam Agarwal to argue that transfer was not warranted. However, in that case, the Court had refused transfer because the DV proceedings were at an advanced stage.

Family Court’s Competence To Decide DV Reliefs

Justice Khata held that there was no legal impediment to the Family Court deciding issues raised under the Domestic Violence Act when they overlapped with matrimonial claims. The Court observed:

“The reliefs sought in the DV proceedings are such as can also be granted by the Family Court. Given the overlap in issues, the proximity of forums, and the social background of the parties, no inconvenience will be caused by transfer.”

The Court stressed that the Family Court was better suited to adjudicate custody, residence, and protection claims alongside divorce and restitution petitions, ensuring a holistic adjudication rather than fragmented proceedings.

Distinguishing Anurag Agarwal v. Poonam Agarwal

Rejecting the respondent’s reliance on the precedent, Justice Khata clarified that “in Anurag Agarwal, the DV proceedings were already at an advanced stage. In the present matter, the case is still at the stage of filing evidence and the next hearing is months away. No prejudice would be caused by transfer at this stage.”

Consolidation Of Matrimonial Disputes As Judicial Policy

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022), the Court reiterated that consolidation of proceedings is a judicially recognised principle, particularly in matrimonial disputes. Justice Khata quoted the apex court’s observations:

“When two or more proceedings are pending in different courts between the same parties raising common questions of fact and law, it is desirable that they be tried together to avoid multiplicity and conflict of decisions.”

The High Court also invoked its earlier rulings in Sandip Mrinmoy Chakraborty v. Reshita Sandip Chakraborty (2021) and Rohan Shah v. Nishigandha Shah (2023), affirming that judicial economy, consistency, and fairness demand consolidation where matrimonial and DV disputes overlap.

Granting the application, the Court directed that DV Case No. 62/DV/2024 be transferred to the Family Court, Bandra. Justice Khata ordered:

“Upon receipt of the papers and proceedings, the Family Court, Bandra shall issue notice to the parties, preferably within three weeks, and proceed with the matter expeditiously.”

The Court disposed of the application, clarifying that no prejudice would result to the wife and that consolidation was in the best interests of justice.

Conclusion

By directing the transfer of domestic violence proceedings to the Family Court, the Bombay High Court reinforced the principle that matrimonial litigation should not be scattered across multiple forums when the issues and reliefs substantially overlap. The ruling ensures consistency, reduces multiplicity, and recognises the Family Court as the proper forum to adjudicate such intertwined disputes.

Date of Decision: 19 August 2025