Click the Play button to listen to article

The Bombay High Court has held that a Family Court cannot decide an application under Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), seeking modification of maintenance and rent orders originally passed by a Magistrate. The Court ruled that Section 26 of the DV Act, which enables Civil and Family Courts to grant reliefs under Sections 18 to 22, does not confer jurisdiction to decide modification applications under Section 25(2).

Justice Gauri Godse was hearing an application filed by a wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of her husband's application under Section 25(2) of the DV Act from the Magistrate's Court at Andheri to the Family Court.

The wife had initiated proceedings under the DV Act, in which she was awarded maintenance for herself and her daughter, which was later enhanced by the Sessions Court. The husband filed an application before the Magistrate under Section 25(2) of the DV Act, seeking modification of the maintenance and rent amounts on the ground of changed circumstances. The wife sought its transfer to the Family Court, where divorce proceedings, a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and a counterclaim for maintenance were pending.

The wife argued that the evidence in the proceedings before the two courts would overlap and that attending both proceedings within the time-bound schedules fixed by the High Court would cause her considerable hardship. It was further contended that Section 26 empowered the Family Court to grant reliefs under the DV Act and that the modification application could therefore also be transferred there.

The Court first considered the wife's plea of inconvenience and found it insufficient to justify transfer. It noted that the two courts were not far from her residence and that the time-bound directions for both sets of proceedings had been passed after hearing the parties. It also observed that the proceedings before the Family Court and the modification application before the Magistrate involved different considerations.

Turning to the question of jurisdiction, the Court explained that Section 24 CPC permits transfer only to a court competent to try or dispose of the proceeding. It then examined Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and noted that the legislature had not amended these provisions to confer upon Family Courts the special jurisdiction exercised by Magistrates under the DV Act.

“… the legislature has not amended Sections 7 or 8 of the Family Courts Act regarding the learned Magistrate's jurisdiction to exercise the special powers conferred under the DV Act. Section 26 of the DV Act permits the aggrieved party or the respondent to seek reliefs under Sections 18 to 22…,” the Court observed.

The Court clarified that Section 26 is an enabling and supplementary provision permitting parties to seek reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act in proceedings pending before Civil or Family Courts. However, it does not make a Family Court the competent Magistrate under Section 2(i) of the DV Act for deciding an application under Section 25.

“… Section 26 of the DV Act, as an enabling and supplementary provision, cannot be interpreted to mean that the Family Court is the competent Magistrate under Section 2 (i) of the DV Act to try and decide the application under Section 25 of the DV Act,” the Court remarked.

Hence, the Court held that in the absence of any specific jurisdiction conferred upon the Family Court to decide the application under Section 25 of the DV Act, the discretionary powers under Section 24 of the CPC cannot be exercised.

The Court accordingly dismissed the wife's transfer application.

Case Title: Deepika Jimesh Ranawat v. Jimesh Mahendra Ranawat [Misc. Civil Application No. 272 of 2026]

Full View
Tags: