Dismissed¶43

Angad Amarjeet Bhatty v. Sanaya Banatwala

Bombay HC6 Oct 2025MCA/30/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MCA 30/2025, Angad Amarjeet Bhaty v. Sanaya Banatwala, Bombay High Court, Rajesh S. Patil, J., 6 October 2025. Husband's application to transfer wife's Domestic Violence proceedings from JMFC Court No.9, Bandra to Family Court, Bandra dismissed; wife's choice/convenience of forum upheld following N.C.V. Aishwarya (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199) and Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage (MCA 239/2024); conflicting-judgments argument rejected since 498-A IPC complaint and perjury application would remain before the Magistrate; D.V. Act Sections 18-22, 12, 26; Section 24 CPC transfer principles; costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on husband.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the applicant; costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on the applicant-husband, payable to the respondent-wife within four weeks. ¶43

Angad Amarjeet Bhatty vs Sanaya Banatwala — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the applicant; costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on the applicant-husband, payable to the respondent-wife within four weeks.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the Domestic Violence proceedings filed by the respondent-wife and pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.9), Bandra, should be transferred to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, as sought by the applicant-husband on the grounds that conflicting judgments may result and the proceedings are at an initial stage.

¶12

Court's answer

It is the respondent-wife who has the choice of selecting the forum for the domestic violence proceedings; accordingly, the applicant-husband's transfer application is devoid of merit and is rejected.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The plea that transfer was necessary to avoid conflicting judgments fails, because even if the Domestic Violence proceedings are transferred to the Family Court at Bandra, the other two proceedings filed by the respondent-wife would in any event have to be heard only by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Rajesh S. Patil, J., dated 6 October 2025) dismissed a husband's Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 30/2025 seeking transfer of Domestic Violence proceedings, filed by his wife before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.9), Bandra, to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 (wife's convenience governs transfer applications) and on the Judge's earlier decision in Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage v. Abhijeet Narayan Kandage (Misc. Civil Application No.239 of 2024), the Court held that the choice of forum for Domestic Violence proceedings rests with the wife (aggrieved person). The husband's sole ground — avoidance of conflicting judgments — was rejected because, even if the Domestic Violence proceedings moved to the Family Court, the parallel Section 498-A IPC complaint (charge-sheeted before JMFC Court No.12, Bandra) and the pending Perjury Application would in any event remain before the Magistrate. The application was rejected with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the applicant-husband to the respondent-wife within four weeks.

¶1

2025:BHC-AS:45994

¶2

Diksha Rane 16 MCA 302025.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 30/2025

¶6

ANGAD AMARJEET BHATTY ..APPLICANT VS SANAYA BANATWALA ..RESPONDENT

¶7

Adv. V. M. Siram a/w. Adv. S. S. Jain i/b. Adv. A. K. Tipnis for applicant.

¶8

Adv. Gayatri Gokhale a/w. Adv. Zainba Abdi for respondent.

¶9

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶10

DATE : 6 OCTOBER 2025.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1) This application has been filed by the applicant, husband of the respondent, seeking transfer of Domestic Violence proceedings filed by the respondent-wife pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.9) to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.

¶13

2) Admittedly, as of today, there are three proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.9) filed by the respondent-wife viz.

¶14

(a) A criminal complaint filed under Section 498-A of the Indian

¶15

Penal Code wherein the charge-sheet has already been filed before

¶16

¶17

Diksha Rane 16 MCA 302025.doc

¶18

the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.12), Bandra, Mumbai ;

¶19

(b) The Perjury Application is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.9), Bandra, Mumbai; and

¶20

(c) The Domestic Violence proceedings filed by the respondentwife pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.9), Bandra, Mumbai.

¶21

2.1) The applicant-husband has also filed the divorce proceedings before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai.

¶22

3) The husband’s only reason seeking for transfer of one proceeding (Domestic Violence proceeding) out of three proceedings filed by the respondent-wife is that, there should not be conflicting judgments and that the proceedings are at initial stage.

¶23

4) Considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Versus A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 , wherein the Supreme Court states that

¶24

it is the convenience of the wife which has to be taken into consideration while dealing with the transfer proceeding. Paragraph 9 of the said decision reads as under:-

¶25

The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters,

¶26

¶27

Diksha Rane 16 MCA 302025.doc

¶28

wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.

¶29

(Emphasis supplied)

¶30

5) In the case of Jyoti Abhijeet Kandage vs. Abhijeet Narayan

¶31

Kandage (Misc. Civil Application No.239 of 2024) , I have considered

¶32

all the provisions as far as transfer proceedings are concerned. In

¶33

paragraph No.15 and 15.2, it has been held as under :-

¶34

“15) Considering the Sections of D.V. Act, and the Judgments discussed in the above paragraphs, it becomes evident that Family Court has power to decide complaint which seeks relief under Sections 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act. Hence in my opinion, transfer of proceedings from Magistrate’s Court to Family Court pertaining to relief claimed under Section 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act can be allowed. However, if a transfer proceedings is not a bonafide one, then on merits such a transfer on case to case basis can be rejected. One has to also keep in mind the stage of the proceedings of which transfer is sought.

¶35

15.2) So also, one has to also keep in mind who is coming to the court for the transfer of the proceedings, whether it is the Wife or the Husband or any other party. Since a choice is given to the aggrieved person under the D.V. Act to choose the forum for reliefs sought under Section 18 to 22, (i.e.) before the Magistrate under Section 12 or to the civil court, family court or criminal court under Section 26, such transfer if sought by a Wife, considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra) will have to be considered favourably.”

¶36

6) Even if it is presumed that the Domestic Violence proceedings

¶37

are transferred from the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Court No.9)

¶38

to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, even then two more

¶39

¶40

Diksha Rane 16 MCA 302025.doc

¶41

proceedings filed by the respondent, wife will have to be heard only by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Hence, the argument of conflicting judgments being passed is without merits. Therefore, in my view, it is only the respondent-wife, who has the choice for selecting Forum to file the domestic violence proceedings. I find no merits in the present application.

¶42

6.1) This matter was argued before me atleast on three different dates, for a considerable period of time. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out the proceedings of perjury pending against the applicant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, for making false and fabricated statements, and pressed for imposing cost on the applicant for wasting judicial time when lots of litigants are waiting for their turn.

¶43

7) Hence, the Misc. Civil Application stands rejected with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by applicant-husband to respondent-wife within four weeks.

¶44

8) All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶45

(Rajesh S. Patil, J.)

¶46

¶47

Signed by: Diksha Rane Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/10/2025 15:35:13

Angad Amarjeet Bhatty v. Sanaya Banatwala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angad Amarjeet Bhatty v. Sanaya Banatwala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gaurang rajendra sharma vs Parul Gaurang Sharma

Sarath Manari Gopinathan vs Rahul Rajendranath Khanna

1. Aminbhai Holiabhai Patel vs 1. Vajirbhai Parshottambhai Patel

Mrs. Prajakata Sachin Vaidya vs Shri Sachin Bhanudas Vaidya

The State of Maharashtra (through the Special Land and Acquisition Officer) and Anr. vs Shri. Zaga Rupsing Chaure and Ors.

Shruthi Jaideep Nair vs Jaideep Sivadas Nair