Justice Gauri Godse holds that only the Magistrate who passed the original domestic violence order can hear a Section 25(2) modification plea; wife’s inconvenience plea rejected
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a wife’s plea seeking transfer of her husband’s application for modification of maintenance and rent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, from a Magistrate’s court to the Family Court.
In Deepika Jimesh Ranawat v. Jimesh Mahendra Ranawat and Others, decided on October 23, 2026, Justice Gauri Godse ruled that an application under Section 25(2) of the DV Act for modification of an earlier maintenance and alternate accommodation order cannot be transferred to the Family Court under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code merely because related matrimonial proceedings are already pending there.
The dispute arose after the wife had earlier succeeded in domestic violence proceedings before the Magistrate at Andheri. She was initially granted monthly rent for alternate accommodation and maintenance for herself and her daughter. The order was later modified in appeal by the Sessions Court in 2022, enhancing the rent and maintenance amounts. That order was subsequently upheld by the Bombay High Court, while the husband’s challenge before the Supreme Court was disposed of after he stated that he was not pressing the issue of quantum.
In 2026, the husband filed a fresh application before the Magistrate under Section 25(2) of the DV Act, seeking modification of the maintenance and rent order on the ground of changed circumstances. The wife then approached the High Court seeking transfer of this modification application to the Family Court, where divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, and maintenance-related proceedings between the parties were already pending.
The wife argued that parallel time-bound proceedings in both courts were causing hardship, especially as she had to care for her minor daughter studying in Class 10. She also contended that the evidence and issues in the Family Court and the DV Act modification proceedings were interconnected, and therefore, it would be more convenient if all matters were heard by one forum.
However, the High Court rejected these submissions. The court observed that for a transfer under Section 24 CPC, the transferee court must be legally competent to try the matter. Justice Godse held that while Section 26 of the DV Act allows civil courts and family courts to grant certain reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act in pending proceedings, it does not include the power to decide a modification application under Section 25.
The court said Section 26 is only an enabling and supplementary provision and cannot be interpreted as conferring full jurisdiction on the Family Court to act as a Magistrate under the DV Act. Since the original domestic violence order had been passed by the Magistrate, the same statutory forum was the competent court to consider any plea for modification on the basis of changed circumstances.
Relying on the principle that the court which passed the basic order ordinarily retains the power to modify it, the High Court noted that the husband’s Section 25(2) application must remain before the Magistrate. The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rakesh Malhotra v. Krishna Malhotra in support of this principle.
On the wife’s plea of inconvenience, the High Court found no sufficient ground to exercise discretionary transfer powers. It noted that the wife’s residence, the Magistrate’s court, and the Family Court were not far apart. It also observed that the matrimonial proceedings and the DV Act modification proceedings were different in scope, and mere pendency of related matters before the Family Court could not justify transfer.
The court further emphasized the special scheme of the DV Act, under which jurisdiction is specifically conferred on the Magistrate and speedy disposal is contemplated, including the statutory objective reflected in Section 12(5).
Dismissing the transfer application, the High Court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the transfer plea and would not influence the merits of the husband’s pending modification application before the Magistrate.
Bottom Line:
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Application under Section 25(2) for modification of maintenance/rent order passed by Magistrate cannot be transferred to Family Court under Section 24 CPC merely because matrimonial proceedings are pending there - Section 26 of DV Act is only an enabling provision for reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 and does not confer jurisdiction on Family Court to decide modification under Section 25 - Convenience/hardship not made out.
Statutory provision(s): Section 24 CPC, Sections 2(i), 12(5), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25(2), 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 125 CrPC, Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Deepika Jimesh Ranawat v. Jimesh Mahendra Ranawat, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 3012521
