Raghuraj Pratap Singh v. Bhanvi Kumari Singh, 2026
Supreme Court Transfers Domestic Violence Case from MP/MLA Court to Saket Court; Jurisdiction Issue Kept Open
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
26 September 2026
Judges
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
Raghuraj Pratap Singh and Bhanvi Kumari Singh were involved in matrimonial litigation. The parties had married on 17 February 1995 and had four children, all of whom had become majors. According to the factual background recorded by the Delhi High Court, the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home in Uttar Pradesh in 2017 and had been residing in Delhi.
-
The petitioner had instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Saket, Delhi. The respondent subsequently instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the HMA.
-
The respondent-wife also initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The proceedings ultimately came before the designated MP/MLA Court at Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi, because Raghuraj Pratap Singh was a sitting MLA.
-
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Rouse Avenue Court, arguing principally that Section 27 of the PWDV Act required the matter to be dealt with by the competent Magistrate having the appropriate territorial jurisdiction, rather than merely because one party was an MLA.
-
The Delhi High Court rejected this challenge on 30 May 2026, holding that the designated MP/MLA Court continued to function as a Magistrate and could entertain the proceedings.
-
The matter was thereafter challenged before the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 could be entertained by a designated MP/MLA Court merely because the respondent-husband was a sitting MLA.
-
Whether the designated MP/MLA Court at Rouse Avenue possessed the necessary jurisdiction under Section 27 of the PWDV Act.
-
Whether a matrimonial/domestic-violence proceeding could appropriately be assigned to a designated MP/MLA Court when the proceeding was otherwise connected with the ordinary territorial jurisdiction of the Saket Courts.
-
Whether the administrative designation of a Magistrate as an MP/MLA Court changes its character as a Court of Magistrate for purposes of the PWDV Act.
-
Whether the Supreme Court should finally determine the jurisdictional question or dispose of the matter on the basis of the parties' consent to transfer the proceedings.
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court did not finally adjudicate the jurisdictional question.
-
The Court observed that the parties were involved in acrimonious matrimonial litigation and that one of the proceedings concerned the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The controversy before the Court principally concerned whether proceedings pending before the specially designated MP/MLA Court at Rouse Avenue were maintainable in light of the territorial-jurisdiction requirement under Section 27 of the PWDV Act.
-
The Court referred to the purpose behind the creation/designation of special courts for cases involving MPs and MLAs and observed, prima facie, that a matrimonial dispute should not be placed before such a special court merely because one of the parties happens to be a legislator. However, the Court expressly declined to finally decide that question because the parties consented to transfer the proceedings.
-
Accordingly, CT Case No. 12/2024, Bhanvi Kumari Singh v. Raghuraj Pratap Singh, pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Courts, was transferred to the Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
-
The Supreme Court requested the Saket Court to explore the possibility of disposing of the matter within approximately one year and directed the parties to cooperate.
Held
-
The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition by consent of the parties and transferred the domestic-violence case from the Rouse Avenue MP/MLA Court to the Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
-
Importantly, the Court stated that its observations were prima facie and that the question of law was kept open. Therefore, the order should not be treated as a final ruling that MP/MLA Courts categorically lack jurisdiction over PWDV Act proceedings.
Analysis
-
The significance of the order lies primarily in its treatment of judicial jurisdiction versus administrative designation.
-
The Delhi High Court had taken the view that an ACJM sitting in a designated MP/MLA Court remains a Magistrate for purposes of the PWDV Act. Consequently, the designation of the court for MP/MLA cases did not, by itself, remove its statutory jurisdiction.
-
The High Court relied on the statutory framework of the PWDV Act, particularly Sections 2(i), 27 and 28. It also noted that although many remedies under the PWDV Act are predominantly civil in nature, the Act contains criminal enforcement mechanisms, including Section 31, which deals with breach of protection orders.
-
The Supreme Court, however, did not affirm or overrule this reasoning. Instead, it adopted a narrower procedural course because both parties consented to transfer the case.
-
The Supreme Court's observation 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” is significant, but it remained a prima facie observation, not a binding final determination on the jurisdictional issue.
-
The Court therefore preserved the possibility of deciding the legal question in an appropriate future case. This is particularly important because the Supreme Court expressly stated that “the question of law is kept open.”
-
The immediate practical effect was that the particular domestic-violence proceeding was moved back to the Saket Mahila Court, where the parties had originally approached the court.
-
Legal significance: The order demonstrates the Supreme Court's distinction between a prima facie view and a binding adjudication of law. It also highlights the need to distinguish an administrative arrangement for concentrating MP/MLA cases from the statutory requirements governing jurisdiction under the PWDV Act. The order itself, however, does not settle the general jurisdictional question for all MP/MLA Courts.