“16. These decisions clearly show that the correct interpretation of section 26 of the DV Act is that, though an application under section 12 can be considered only by a magistrate and cannot be considered by a Family Court or Civil Court or any other Court, the reliefs that can be granted under Sections 18 to 22 can also be granted by other courts while dealing with the pending disputes. There is a sea of difference between holding that both courts have concurrent jurisdiction and that, one Court can grant the reliefs, which can be granted by another court. What is clarified by section 26 is that, the reliefs under sections 18 to 22 can be granted by other civil courts. Section 26(3) of the DV Act clarifies that, if a relief under sections 18 to 22 is granted by other court, it shall be reported to the jurisdictional magistrate, which clearly and categorically clarifies that, both the jurisdictions conferred thereon on other courts are not concurrent. 17. In the light of the clear distinction of jurisdictions, there cannot be a transfer of the case pending before the magistrate court under section 12 of the DV Act to a Family Court. Further, the procedures to be followed in adjudication, the enforcement of orders and the provisions for appeal are different in both courts. Hence, reliefs sought by the petitioners herein cannot be granted.”
