New Delhi: The Supreme Court has observed that a matrimonial dispute cannot be agitated before a special MP/MLA Court merely because one of the parties happens to be a legislator, while disposing of a Special Leave Petition arising out of a jurisdictional challenge to proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a petition filed by the husband, aggrieved by an order of the Delhi High Court affirming the maintainability of proceedings before the special designated MP/MLA Court at Rouse Avenue, New Delhi.
The petitioner had contended that the said Court lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 27 of the PWDV Act, since the case had originally been filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, and was later withdrawn and taken to the Special Court, allegedly for expeditious disposal.
The High Court had relied on this Court's decisions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Another to hold the transfer to the Special Court maintainable. Examining the report at (2021) 20 SCC 613, the Bench observed that Special Courts for MPs/MLAs were designated to try criminal cases against legislators under the Indian Penal Code and special legislations, in view of large pendency and delay, so as to ensure public accountability and prevention of corruption.
“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,” the Bench recorded.
The Court, however, clarified that it was not called upon to decide the question of law, since the respondent-wife, appearing in person, was more concerned with expeditious disposal of the case. With the consent of both parties, the Court directed that the case, pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Courts, be transferred back to the Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, where it was originally filed. The MM-02 Court was requested to explore disposal of the case within a year, with the parties directed to cooperate.
“We make it clear that the observations made by us are merely prima facie and the question of law is kept open,” the Bench clarified before disposing of the Special Leave Petition along with pending applications.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gaurav Choudhary, AOR, Mr. Dhruv Gupta and Mr. Anubhav Garg, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mohd Bilal, Mr. Vishal Maurya, Ms. Tanya Agarwal, AOR, Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Ms. Neena Shukla and Ms. Surbhi Khanna, Advocates.
Case Title: Raghuraj Pratap Singh vs. Bhanvi Kumari Singh, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11962 of 2026
