Supreme Court Transfers Domestic Violence Case Away from MP/MLA Special Court, Doubts Jurisdiction
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran doubted that a matrimonial dispute can go before an MP/MLA Special Court merely because one party is a legislator, and transferred the case back to the court where it was first filed.
The Supreme Court on 15 July 2026 disposed of a Special Leave Petition arising from a domestic violence dispute between a legislator and his wife, transferring the case from the MP/MLA Special Court at Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, back to the Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts — the court before which the proceedings were originally filed. The bench expressed prima facie doubt that a matrimonial dispute could be agitated before an MP/MLA Special Court simply because one of the parties holds elected office, while leaving the underlying question of law open.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
Raghuraj Pratap Singh and Bhanvi Kumari Singh are parties to an acrimonious matrimony and resulting litigation. One thread of that litigation is a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), which forms the subject matter of SLP(Crl.) No.11962 of 2026.
The case was originally filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. It was later withdrawn from that court and moved to the MP/MLA Special Court at Rouse Avenue — reportedly for the purpose of expeditious disposal. The jurisdictional propriety of that shift became the core controversy.
The High Court of Delhi affirmed a detailed order passed by the Special Court, relying on decisions of the Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Another, reported at (2021) 20 SCC 613. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order dated 30 May 2026 in CRLMC No.7205 of 2024.
The Court's Prima Facie View on MP/MLA Courts and Matrimonial Disputes
The bench examined the purpose behind the designation of MP/MLA Special Courts. Reviewing the relevant report in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, the Court found that those Special Courts were constituted to try criminal cases against Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies in offences under the Indian Penal Code and special legislations. The rationale was to address large pendency and delay in such cases, promote public accountability, and prevent corruption.
Against that backdrop, the bench found it difficult to accept that a matrimonial dispute could land before an MP/MLA Special Court. The Court held that it was “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 controversy also carried a statutory dimension: whether the proceedings before the MP/MLA Special Court at Rouse Avenue were maintainable at all, given the territorial jurisdiction mandate under Section 27 of the PWDV Act. Section 27 confines jurisdiction over PWDV Act complaints to the Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the aggrieved person resides, is employed, or the respondent resides.
Question of Law Kept Open
Despite expressing a clear prima facie view, the bench did not decide the jurisdictional question of law. The reason was practical: the respondent, Bhanvi Kumari Singh, was present in person and was focused less on the legal issue and more on the expeditious disposal of the case. Both sides gave their consent to a transfer.
The Court was explicit that its observations were “merely prima facie” and that “the question of law is kept open.” This preserves the issue for resolution in an appropriate future proceeding where it arises squarely and the parties contest it.
Transfer Direction and Timeline
On the consent of both parties, the bench directed that CT Case No.12/2024, titled Ms. Bhanvi Kumari Singh v. Sh. Raghuraj Pratap Singh, pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Rouse Avenue Courts, shall stand transferred to the Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
The Court also requested the MM-02 Court at Saket to explore the possibility of disposing of the case within at least one year, and directed both parties to cooperate in that effort.
Outcome
The Special Leave Petition was disposed of on 15 July 2026. The pending application for exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment (IA No.187629/2026) was also disposed of. The case now returns to the Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, where it was first instituted.