Allowed

Tressan Ajay Coelho v. Judelene Dsouza

Bombay HC23 Jan 2024APPLN/135/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband sought transfer of a DV case from the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Bandra to the Family Court, where the wife's divorce petition was pending. Relying on Roshan Shah, the High Court allowed transfer, directed the Magistrate to decide the pending maintenance application within four weeks, and stayed other proceedings pending transfer.

What did the court decide?

DV Case No. 143/DV/21 transferred from the 12th Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Bandra to the Family Court, Bandra to be tried with Petition A-2743 of 2021.

Tressan Ajay Coelho Vs Judelene Dsouza — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

4-APPLN-135-2023.DOC

¶2

Wadhwa

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 135 OF 2023

¶4

Tressan Ajay Coelho & Ors…Applicants
Versus
Judelene D’Souza & Anr…Respondents

¶5

Mr Samarth Moray, i/b Shivani Suryakant Shinde, for the Applicant.
Mr Viral Thakur, i/b LJ Law, for the Respondent No. 1.
Ms Sharmila Kaushik, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶6

CORAM Kamal Khata, J. DATED: 23rd January 2024

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.This Application is under Section 407 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) for transfer of the proceedings
from the 12th Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Bandra to the
Family Court at Bandra.

¶9

2.The marriage between the Applicant and the Respondent
took place on 9th November 2019. There are no issues from the said
wedlock. On account of marital discord, the Respondent wife filed a
complaint before the Bandra Police Station on 3rd May 2021 and
after that the Respondent wife filed an application under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“PWDV

¶10

Digitally signed by SANDHYA SANDHYA BHAGU BHAGU WADHWA WADHWA Date: 2024.01.25 13:10:16 +0530

¶11

Page 1 of 4
23rd January 2023

¶12

4-APPLN-135-2023.DOC

¶13

Act”) on 9th August 2021, viz., DV case No. 143 of 2021 before the
12th Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bandra. The Respondent
No. 1 thereafter on 20th September 2021 filed a Petition for divorce,
viz., Petition No. A-2743 of 2021 before the Family Court at Bandra.

¶14

3.It is submitted by the counsel for the Applicant that the trials
in both cases, viz., before the Metropolitan Magistrate as well as
before the Family Court at Bandra are yet to commence. He submits
that it would be in the interest of both the concerned parties if the
proceedings are clubbed and tried before a forum. It would not only
obviate multiplicity of proceedings but also hardship and would save
precious judicial time of the Courts. He relied on the judgment of
Roshan Shah vs Nishigandha Shah1 to submit that this is a fit case for
clubbing and/or transfer of the matter from Magistrate’s Court to
the Family Court and urged that transfer may be granted.

¶15

4.I have heard both advocates and having considered the facts
and circumstances I am inclined to grant the transfer moreso in view
of the judgement in the case of Rohan Shah (supra).

¶16

5. I accordingly pass the following order;

¶17

(i) Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) which reads
thus:

¶18

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to transfer case

¶19

No. 143/DV/21, filed by Respondent No. 1 before the

¶20

1 2023:BHC-AS:38681; 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2719

¶21

Page 2 of 4
23rd January 2023

¶22

4-APPLN-135-2023.DOC

¶23

Ld. 12th Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Bandra, to
the Ld. Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai and further be
pleased to direct that the same be heard and tried along
with Petition A 2743 of 2021 pending before the Ld.
Family Court, Bandra filed by the Respondent No. 1.”

¶24

(ii) At this stage, it is pointed out that the Interim Application for
maintenance was closed for orders by the Metropolitan Magistrate’s
Court on 3rd March 2023. As on 8th August no orders were passed
and then on account of the stay granted by this Court, no order was
passed on that application.

¶25

(iii) In view of what is submitted and which is undisputed that the
matter is closed for orders, the Magistrate may pass an order within
four weeks from the date of this order, i.e., on or before 20th
February 2024.

¶26

(iv) On expiry of four weeks the proceedings shall be transferred to
the Family Court at Bandra.

¶27

(v) It is clarified that all other proceedings shall continue to be
stayed pending the transfer.

¶28

(vi) Upon the transfer being effected, the Family Court to give
notice to the parties concerned, preferably within three weeks, to
proceed with the matters.

¶29

(vii) Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶30

Page 3 of 4
23rd January 2023

¶31

4-APPLN-135-2023.DOC

¶32

(viii) No orders as to costs.

¶33

 (Kamal Khata, J)

¶34

Page 4 of 4
23rd January 2023

Tressan Ajay Coelho v. Judelene Dsouza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tressan Ajay Coelho v. Judelene Dsouza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imco Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mundhra Indsutrial Corporation

Indian Construction Vs Union of India Anr. through the General Manager and Anr.

Dadabhai Godrej Wadia (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. 1.1)M/S. Hanita Dadabhai Wadia and Anr. vs Paliben Dajibhai Tandel (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. 1.1)DIRUBHAI Dajibhai Tandel and Anr.

Jai Girish Radia Vs Priyanka Radia Nee Priyanka Chhabria

Chetan Naginbhai Surti Vs Hetal Chetan Surti

Mr. Vivek Hanumant Mungekar vs Mrs. Kalpana Vivek Mungekar