Mukesh Jayantilal Jain vs Gitanjali Mukesh Jain Alias… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

Mukesh Jayantilal Jain vs Gitanjali Mukesh Jain Alias… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim Application No. 13213 of 2025 allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), restoring Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 371 of 2023, which was immediately taken up for final hearing and thereafter rejected.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Domestic Violence proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Andheri should be transferred to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. +1 more

Court's answer

The present Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 371 of 2023 stands rejected.

Ratio / Principle

Reiterating its own earlier ruling in Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage vs Abhijeet Narayan Kandage and ors. (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 239 of 2024, order dated 15 September, 2025), the court affirms that under Section 26 of the DV Act the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint by the aggrieved person (here, the wife) seeking relief under Sections 18 to 22.

Key takeaways

Since it is the husband who seeks the transfer and the relief sought by the wife extends beyond Sections 18 to 22 to also Sections 16, 17 and 23 of the DV Act, the present Miscellaneous Civil Application has no merit.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay HC (Rajesh S. Patil, J.), 18-11-2025 — IA No. 13213/2025 in MCA No. 371/2023: Mukesh Jayantilal Jain v. Gitanjali Mukesh Jain alias Gitanjali Satendra Singh. Interim application for restoration of the MCA allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); the MCA, seeking transfer of Domestic Violence proceedings from the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Andheri to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, was taken up for final hearing and rejected. Relying on its own earlier ruling in Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage v. Abhijeet Narayan Kandage and ors. (MCA No. 239/2024, order dated 15-09-2025) that under Section 26 of the DV Act the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain an aggrieved person's complaint seeking relief under Sections 18 to 22, the court found that here the applicant-husband sought the transfer while the wife's pleaded relief extended beyond Sections 18 to 22 to also Sections 16, 17 and 23 of the DV Act; the MCA therefore had no merit and stood rejected.

KVM

1/3

903 - IA 13213 OF 2025.doc

Digitally signed by KANCHAN KANCHAN VINOD VINOD MAYEKAR MAYEKAR Date: 2025.11.19 19:00:19 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13213 OF 2025 IN

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 371 OF 2023

MUKESH JAYANTILAL JAIN

….. APPLICANT

VERSUS

GITANJALI MUKESH JAIN ALIAS GITANJALI SATENDRA SINGH

….. RESPONDENT

Adv. Akshay Shetty i/b. AVC & Associates for the Applicant.

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE : 18 NOVEMBER, 2025

P.C. :-

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13213 OF 2025

This interim application is filed for restoration of the Miscellaneous Civil Application.

Heard learned advocate appearing for the applicant and I

have gone through the contents of the interim application.

Interim application stands allowed in terms of prayer

clause (a).

Miscellaneous Civil Application is immediately taken up

for final hearing.

KVM

2/3

903 - IA 13213 OF 2025.doc

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 371 OF 2023

The present Miscellaneous Civil Application seeks transfer of the Domestic Violence proceedings filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Andheri to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.

I have gone through the copy of the DV proceedings which has been enclosed with the Miscellaneous Civil Application. At page 71, in the first paragraph itself, it has been stated that “The present petition under Sections 12, 16, 17, 18 (a), (b), (c), (e), 19 (a), (b), (d), (f), 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ………”.

Hence, apart from the Sections 18 to 22, relief has also been sought under Sections 16, 17 and 23 of the DV Act. I have already held in case of Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage vs Abhijeet Narayan Kandage and ors. in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 239 of 2024 order dated 15 September, 2025 that under Section 26 of the DV Act, the Family Court will have jurisdiction to entertain complaint seeking relief under Sections 18 to 22 filed by the aggrieved person (in the present case, the wife). In the present proceedings, it is the husband who is seeking transfer of the DV proceedings and the relief sought by the wife apart from Sections 18 to 22, also seeking relief under Sections 16, 17 and 23 of the DV Act. Therefore, there is no merit in

KVM

3/3

903 - IA 13213 OF 2025.doc

the present Miscellaneous Civil Application.

1. Hence, the present Miscellaneous Civil Application stands

rejected.

[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.]