P&H High Court rejects transfer of DV case to Family Court
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that DV Act cases cannot be transferred to Family Courts.
- Justice Mandeep Pannu dismissed the husband's transfer application.
- The court held that Family Courts lack original jurisdiction for independent DV Act proceedings.
- Counsel for the wife argued the Magistrate is the designated forum under the law.
- Parties are directed to continue proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate in Gurugram.
Justice Mandeep Pannu dismissed the husband's transfer application, holding that Family Courts lack the original jurisdiction to adjudicate independent proceedings under the DV Act.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition by Razorpay directors Harshil Mathur and Shashank Kumar to quash an SFIO case. The case alleges that the company failed to perform proper KYC and facilitated Chinese-controlled loan apps that utilized predatory money recovery methods. Justice M Nagaprasanna issued the order on November 4, 2026, stating that the matter involves disputed facts that require a trial.
It identified a network of shell companies created by Jillian Consultants India Private Limited, including Mad Elephant Network Technology Private Limited, which is allegedly controlled by Chinese entities. Mad Elephant Network Technology Private Limited is accused of using predatory methods to generate ₹56.63 crores in wrongful gains.
Razorpay is accused of acting as a conduit for transactions involving ₹320 crores through fake companies without proper due diligence. The case is currently pending trial in a Bengaluru court.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that KYC responsibilities lie with banks, other intermediaries were not named, and the case is barred by limitation. Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath, representing the Union of India, argued that the allegations regarding Razorpay's role as a conduit warrant a trial.
Husband sought transfer citing overlapping evidence
He argued that the maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which is before the Family Court, shares overlapping evidence.
The husband maintained that separate proceedings could result in conflicting findings and a multiplicity of litigation.
Wife's counsel argues Magistrate remains the designated forum
He told the court that Section 26 does not grant the Family Court concurrent jurisdiction to hear these matters.
The wife was also represented by advocate Tamanna Banwala, while the husband's legal team included advocates Karan Kaushal and Nitesh Dalal.
Court clarifies Section 26 of DV Act does not grant concurrent jurisdiction
The court clarified that the power to grant specific reliefs under Section 26 of the DV Act during pending proceedings does not equate to independent jurisdiction. It rejected the argument that Section 7 of the Family Courts Act provides the necessary authority.
The court noted that Section 7(2)(a) only covers maintenance under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure and does not extend to proceedings prescribed under special enactments.
High Court relies on precedents from Kerala and Delhi
The High Court relied on judicial precedents from Kerala and Delhi to support its conclusion. It cited the Kerala High Court's decision in the 2023 case of Vineet Ganesh versus Priyanka Vasan.
The court also referenced the Delhi High Court's ruling in the case of Aseem Khanna.
Convenience does not override statutory jurisdiction
The court stated that party convenience cannot be the sole factor in a transfer application if the proposed court lacks the statutory jurisdiction to hear the matter. It emphasized that legal authority must take precedence over the ease of proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Add NewsPulse Time as a preferred source on Google