Matrimonial Dispute Cannot Be Heard By MP/MLA Courts Just Because One Party Is A Legislator : Supreme Court's Prima Facie View

The Supreme Court has made a prima facie observation that MP/MLA courts specially designated to expedite criminal cases against the legislators lack jurisdiction to try matrimonial disputes. “We are not convinced that a matrimonial dispute can be agitated before such a special Court merely for reason of one of the parties being a legislator.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while hearing a plea of MLA Raghuraj Pratap Singh (popularly known as Raja Bhaiya) against the Delhi High Court's decision upholding the issuance of a summon by a Rouse Avenue MP/MLA court against him in a case filed by his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). The High Court said that the MP/MLA Court continues to remain a Court of Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Cr.P.C./BNSS, and therefore, proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act could validly continue before them. Singh, who is an MLA from Kunda Constituency, challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the MP/MLA court lacks jurisdiction to hear cases filed under the PWDV Act. Before the Supreme Court, the issue was “whether the proceedings taken before the special designated MP/MLA Court at Rouse Avenue, would be maintainable for lack of jurisdiction especially considering the statutory mandate under territorial jurisdiction under Section 27 of the PWDV Act.” At the outset, the Court was informed by the Petitioner's senior counsel Kirti Uppal that originally the case was filed by the Respondent-wife before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court (Mahila Court); however, the case was withdrawn to be filed before the Special Court for expeditious disposal. Acceding to the petitioner's argument, the Court, relying on Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Another (2021), observed that “the Special Courts for MP/MLA were sought to be designated to try criminal cases against MPs/MLAs in offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the special legislations.” “Large pendency and delay occasioned, prompted this Court to pass orders directing designations of special Courts to ensure public accountability, promote vigilance and prevention of corruption.”, the Court added, stressing that the objective of constituting special courts was to try MP/MLA cases in an expeditious manner. The Court, however, clarified that the aforesaid observation regarding the jurisdiction of the Special Courts to try matrimonial disputes was prima facie, and kept the question of law open. Upon noting that the parties gave consent to transfer the case to the court where it was first filed i.e., Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, the Court disposed of the plea with a direction to the Magisterial Court to explore the possibility of disposal of the case within at least a year, and the parties are directed to co-operate. Cause Title: RAGHURAJ PRATAP SINGH PETITIONER VERSUS BHANVI KUMARI SINGHCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 708Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Choudhary, AOR Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) :Mr. Mohd Bilal, Adv. Mr. Vishal Maurya, Adv. Ms. Tanya Agarwal, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Adv. Ms. Neena Shukla, Adv. Ms. Surbhi Khanna, Adv.

Matrimonial Dispute Cannot Be Heard By MP/MLA Courts Just Because One Party Is A Legislator : Supreme Court's Prima Facie View

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Matrimonial Dispute Cannot Be Heard By MP/MLA Courts Just Because One Party Is A Legislator : Supreme Court's Prima Facie View

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers