C V S RAVI Vs. RATNA SAILAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the above Criminal Original Petition is the husband of the respondent herein. The respondent herein has filed M. C. No.57 of 2008 before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, under Sec.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking maintenance and she has also filed M. P. No.198 of 2008 claiming interim maintenance. Subsequently the respondent has also filed a petition under Sec.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai, and the same has been taken on file as M. P. No.1038 of 2008. The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the husband-the petitioner herein for transferring M. P. No.1038 of 2008 from the file of the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai to the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with M. C. No.57 of 2008 and M. P. No.198 of 2008 on the ground that the respondent herein is seeking monetary reliefs before both the forums and the issues to be decided in both the cases are same and if both the cases are heard by different courts it may lead to delivery of conflicting judgments and multiplicity of proceedings.

(2.) The transfer sought for by the petitioner is strongly opposed by the respondent herein on the ground that the monetary relief claimed by the respondent in the petition filed before the Family Court under Sec.125 of the Cr. P. C. and the monetary relief claimed by her under the provisions of the Act are different since the respondent has claimed several other reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act which reliefs are beyond the scope of Sec.125 of the Cr. P. C. Further the objection raised by the respondent is that the proceedings initiated under Sec.12 of the Act and pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate cannot be transferred to the Family Court since there is no provision in the Act or in the Cr. P. C. to order such transfer.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel on either side.