Bombay High Court

Rohit Mohan Pugalia vs Purvi Rohit Pugaia on 19 August, 2025

      2025:BHC-AS:35753

                      Sumedh                                                 13-asmca-367-2024-J.doc

                                  IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO.367 OF 2024

                      Rohit Mohan Pugalia                          ]
                      Indian Inhabitant, age 37 years,             ]
                      having his place of residence at             ]
                      401, Villa Velloze, Central Avenue,          ]
                      Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054.            ]    ...Applicant.

                            Versus

                      Purvi Rohit Pugalia                          ]
                      W/o Rohit Mohan Pugalia                      ]
                      Indian Inhabitant, age 37 years,             ]
                      having her place of residence at             ]
                      402, Villa Velloze, Central Avenue           ]
                      Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054.            ]    ...Respondent.



                      Mr. J.K. Shah a/w Ms. Namrata Thakur, Ms. Pooja Shah i/by RJ Law
                      for the Applicant.
                      Mr. Vikramjeet M. Siram a/w Ms. Shaily S. Jain for the Respondent


                                                        CORAM    : KAMAL KHATA, J.
                                                    RESERVED ON : 11th August, 2025.
                                                   PRONOUNCED ON : 19th August, 2025.


                      JUDGMENT:

1) By this Application, the Applicant seeks transfer of DV

case No.62/DV/2024 from Metropolitan Magistrate 71 st Court at

Bandra, to the Family Court at Bandra, to be heard and decided along

with Divorce Petition No.A-1250 of 2024 and Restitution Petition

No.A-1815 of 2024.

Digitally signed by SUMEDH SUMEDH NAMDEO NAMDEO SONAWANE SONAWANE Date:

2025.08.20

09:29:30 +0530

Sumedh 13-asmca-367-2024-J.doc

2) Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the Applicant submits that,

the Respondent has instituted a Divorce Petition No.A-1250 of 2024

before the Family Court at Bandra. In contrast, the Applicant has

filed a Petition bearing No.A-1815 of 2024 before the Family Court at

Mumbai seeking restitution of conjugal rights, custody of minor

daughter Rhyah, and other consequential reliefs.

3) The Respondent has also filed a case No.62/DV/2024

before the Metropolitan Magistrate 71st Court, Bandra, under the

provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

(DV Act) against the Applicant. Learned counsel submits that the

reliefs sought in the DV proceedings substantially overlap with those

claimed in the divorce proceedings. A comparative chart is set out for

ready reference:

Prayers in DV Proceedings Prayers in Divorce Petition No. 62/DV/2024 pending before Ld. A/1250/2024 filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate 71st Family Court, Bandra by the Court at Bandra, filed by the Respondent/Wife. Respondent/Wife.

a) That this Hon'ble Court be a) That a decree be passed pleased to grant a Protection dissolving the marriage th Order u/s 18 of the DV Act and solemnized on 8 December restrain the Respondent from 2012, U/s 13(1)(a) of the Hindu committing and/or aiding and/or Marriage Act, 1955.

abetting and/or attempting to commit any form of domestic violence against the Applicant and/or her family members including the Applicant's mother and the minor girl child and contacting them in any manner

Sumedh 13-asmca-367-2024-J.doc

whatsoever.

b) That this Hon'ble Court be b) To pass an order granting the pleased to restrain the permanent legal custody of the Respondent and/or anybody at is child Rhyah to the Petitioner. instance from entering the residence where the Applicant is presently residing with the minor child viz. 402 Villa Velloze, Central Avenue, Opposite Laxmi General Store, Santacruz West, Mumbai 400054 and further from any other place frequented by the Applicant and/or the child.

c) That this Hon'ble Court be c) To pass an order restraining pleased to pass Custody Orders the Respondent from removing u/s 21 of the DV Act qua the the child from the jurisdiction of minor child in favour of the this Hon'ble Court. Applicant and restrain the Respondent from meeting and/or communicating with the minor girl in any manner.

d) That this Court be pleased to d) For an order restraining the pass a Compensation Order u/s Respondent or his agents or 22 of the DV Act and direct the servants or any other persons Respondent to pay an amount of claiming under him from Rs.20,00,00,000/- towards entering the flat No.402 Villa compensation to the Applicant Velloze, Central Avenue, for the loss, damage, injuries Santacruz West, Mumbai 400054 caused to her by their acts of where the Petitioner is residing domestic violence. with the child.

e) That the Respondents be e) For ad-interim and interim directed to pay the Applicant an reliefs towards prayer clause (a), amount of towards legal expenses (b), (c) & (d); incurred by the Applicant.

f) that during the pendency, f) For such further and other hearing and disposal of the orders as this Hon'ble Court may present application, this Court deem fit and necessary pass interim orders in terms of depending upon the facts and prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). circumstances of the case.

g) Ad-interim and interim orders in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c).

     Sumedh                                              13-asmca-367-2024-J.doc


h) Any other order that this
Court deems fit in the interest of
justice.
                                                             [Emphasis supplied]

4)               Learned counsel further submitted that the reliefs sought

by the Respondent in DV case pending before the Metropolitan

Magistrate Court can equally be pursued before the Family Court

where the divorce petition is pending. Since, the proceedings involve

common issues between the same parties, there is a real likelihood of

conflicting findings, creating difficulties in implementation of Orders.

It would therefore be in the interest of both parties to lead evidence

before a single forum. Consolidating the two proceedings would also

avoid duplication, conserve judicial time, and reduce unnecessary

expense.

5) He further submitted that such transfer would not cause

any inconvenience to either party. On the contrary, continuing the

proceedings before two different forums would compel the parties to

engage different Advocates it may entail engaging different

Advocates and lead to avoidable waste of time, effort and resources.

6) Mr. Siram, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent,

relies upon the judgment in the case of Anurag Agarwal vs Poonam

Agarwal1 to contend that the transfer of proceedings is not

warranted.


        2024:BHC-AS:26874






 Sumedh                                                        13-asmca-367-2024-J.doc

7)              I have heard the learned Advocates for both parties and

perused the record.

8)              Despite        being   granted   sufficient     opportunity,          the

Respondent has not filed any reply. The Mediation Report dated 4 th

April 2025 records that the settlement efforts have failed. The DV

case has reached the stage of filing evidence; however, the next date

of hearing is after a gap of three months, i.e. on 13 th November 2025.

9) This case is evidently one where the marital discord has

escalated. The Applicant alleges physically assault by assailants

engaged by the Respondent's family. On the one hand, the

Respondent-wife seeks a divorce; on the other, the Applicant husband

seeks restitution. The reliefs sought in the DV proceedings in the

Metropolitan Magistrate's Court are such as can also be granted by

the Family Court. Given that both Courts are located in close

proximity, and considering the social background of the parties, no

inconvenience will be caused to the wife. It would be therefore in the

interest of justice that evidence is recorded before a single forum.

The Family Court matter cannot be transferred to the Magistrate's

Court; hence, the appropriate course is to transfer the DV

proceedings to the Family Court.

10) The decision in Anurag Agarwal v Poonam Agarwal

(supra) is distinguishable. In that case, the proceedings before the

Sumedh 13-asmca-367-2024-J.doc

Magistrate's Court were already at an advanced stage, unlike the

present matter.

11) In N.C.V Aishwarya v Saravana Karthik Sha2 the

Supreme Court, while examining the scope of Section 24 of the Code

of Civil Procedure held:

"9.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 trans- fer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wher- ever 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 stan- dard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circum- stances 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.

10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions."

[Emphasis supplied]

12) In line with the principles laid down in Sandip Mrinmoy

Chakraboarty v Reshita Sandip Chakrabarty 3, (DB) (supra) Rohan

Shah v Nishigandha Shah4 and N.C.V Aishwarya v Saravana Karthik

Sha (supra), and upon consideration of the pleadings and material on

record, and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199

2021 SCC OnLine Bom 272

2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2719

Sumedh 13-asmca-367-2024-J.doc

this case, I am satisfied that no prejudice will be caused to the

Respondent if the DV proceedings are transferred from the