Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 frequently outlast the household that produced them: the aggrieved woman moves for work or family support, while the case remains where it was filed years earlier. On 18 September 2026, Justice Siddhartha Sah of the High Court of Uttarakhand, in Prabha Goswami v. Vinod Giri, Criminal Transfer Application No. 31 of 2026, allowed a wife's application under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and transferred her long-pending DV Act case from the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Champawat — the district where she now lives and works.
The application
The applicant-wife sought transfer of Miscellaneous Case No. 2517 of 2014 — her application under the DV Act claiming reliefs including protection, residence, monetary relief and interim orders — from the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun to Champawat. Her circumstances had changed since filing: she was serving as a Child Development Supervisor posted at Champawat and raising two sons on her own. The respondent-husband, employed at Rudrapur, opposed the transfer.
The court's approach
The High Court allowed the transfer, anchoring its reasoning in the settled principle that in matrimonial and quasi-matrimonial proceedings "it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at." The distance between Dehradun and Champawat, the applicant's employment in Champawat and her responsibilities as a single parent together made continued prosecution of the case at Dehradun oppressive. Transfer was therefore "in the interest of justice and looking to the convenience of the wife."
The order did not leave the husband's hardship unaddressed: he was permitted to attend the proceedings before the transferee court through video conferencing, except on dates when his personal presence is necessary.
The balancing framework
| Factor | How courts treat it |
|---|---|
| Wife's residence and employment | Primary. The forum should not make the aggrieved woman choose between her livelihood and her litigation. |
| Childcare responsibilities | Weighs strongly in favour of transfer where the applicant is the custodial parent. |
| Distance and travel burden | Assessed practically — connectivity and travel time, not kilometres alone. |
| Husband's hardship | Relevant, but usually answered by video conferencing and exemption applications rather than by refusing transfer. |
| Stage of the case | A case at the evidence stage may still be transferred; the record travels with it. |
Why this matters in DV litigation
Section 27 of the DV Act already gives the aggrieved person a generous choice of forum at the filing stage — where she resides, where the respondent resides, or where the cause of action arose. But Section 27 speaks to institution, not to what happens when life moves on mid-proceeding. That gap is filled by the general transfer power under Section 447 BNSS for intra-State transfers, and by the Supreme Court's transfer jurisdiction for inter-State movement. This decision illustrates the standard the High Courts apply when asked to use it.
The practice point
A transfer application should be built on documents, not adjectives: the posting or appointment order proving the applicant's employment, school records of the children, and a candid statement of the distance and travel involved. Equally, respondents opposing transfer serve their clients better by seeking video-conferencing directions and costs of appearance than by resisting the transfer outright — courts have shown, as here, that they will order the transfer and design the safeguards themselves.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a DV Act case be transferred from one court to another?
Yes. A case pending before a Magistrate can be transferred within the State by the High Court under Section 447 BNSS (formerly Section 407 CrPC) where transfer is expedient in the interest of justice. Inter-State transfers of proceedings lie to the Supreme Court. The convenience of the aggrieved woman, distance, her employment and childcare responsibilities are all relevant considerations.
What weighed with the High Court in this case?
The applicant was employed as a Child Development Supervisor posted in Champawat and was raising two sons as a single parent, while the case was pending in Dehradun — a considerable distance away. The Court reiterated the settled approach that in matrimonial proceedings it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at, and found transfer to be in the interest of justice.
Is the husband left without protection after such a transfer?
No. Courts routinely balance the equities. Here the respondent, who worked at Rudrapur, was permitted to attend the transferred proceedings through video conferencing on all dates except those where his personal presence is necessary — a condition that preserves his right to defend without defeating the transfer.
Does the same principle apply in Delhi?
Yes. Within Delhi, transfers between Magistrates' courts are sought before the Sessions Court or the High Court of Delhi under the corresponding BNSS provisions, and the wife's convenience carries the same weight. Where the wife has moved to another State, a transfer petition before the Supreme Court is the route.