Swati Gurunath Shingade v. Gurunath Krishna Shingade & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
----- Mr. Shaunak N. Parulekar a/w Dr. Samarth Shrikant Karmarkar a/w Tarun Shrivastava i/by Karmarkar and Associates for the Applicant. Mr. Gurunath Krishna Shingade, Respondent No.1 is present in person. Mr. V. N. Sagare, APP for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE 2026 P.C. :
This is an Application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
By this application, the applicant seeks transfer of the proceedings filed by her under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for various reliefs from the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC, Pune where they are presently pending to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
I have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and Respondent No.1 in person.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of filing of the proceedings in question, the applicant was working in Pune Mugdha 1 of 2 2 2-APPLN 459-24.doc and is now transferred to Mumbai. It is submitted that the applicant has to look after her daughter who is 9 years old and thus it becomes difficult for her to attend the Court at Pune. It is submitted that thus the matter in question be transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class), at Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
This Court on 04th December 2025 passed the following order:-
P.C.:- 1) The learned Counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant has gone to United States and that she will not be able to return to India in next three months. 2) Respondent No.1-husband, present in person state that the present Application is filed only when the Domestic Violence proceedings requested to be transferred was placed for dismissal. 3) In view thereof, at present, there is no urgency for considering the issue of transfer of the said case. 4) At the request of the parties, stand over to 18th December, 2025.
The fact that the Applicant is still in the United States is not disputed. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the present Application. The Criminal Application is therefore rejected. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) Mugdha 2 of 2
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 407; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Jun 2026. The bench was N R BORKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.