ash 1 49mca-63.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.63 OF 2011 Kiran Mahadeo Kamble .. Applicant Vs Ekta Kiran Kamble & Others .. Respondents -- Rahul L. Nerlekar for the Petitioner. Ms Chaitrali Deshmukh for Respondents. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. The Prayer is made for transfer of the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 2005”) pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai to the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant relying upon Section 26 of the said Act of 2005 submits that the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 12 of the said Act of 2005. 2. On plain reading of Section 12 of the said Act of 2005, the application is maintainable to a Magistrate as defined in clause (i) of Section 2 of the said Act of 2005. A Judge of the Family Court cannot be termed as “Magistrate” within the meaning of clause (i) of Section 2 ash 2 49mca-63.11 thereof. 3. Section 26 is an enabling provision. It provides that in a pending legal proceeding before a Civil Court or Criminal Court, it is permissible to seek reliefs available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the said Act of 2005. Section 26 thereof does not confer jurisdiction on Civil and Criminal Courts other than the Courts of Magistrates to entertain the applications under Section 12 of the said Act of 2005. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the reliefs which are claimed by the 1st Respondent in the application under Section 12 of the said Act of 2005 have been already claimed by the 1st Respondent in the proceedings pending in the Family Court. However, that is no ground for passing order of transfer and the Applicant will have to take out appropriate proceedings in that behalf. 5. Suffice it to say that a Judge of the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application as contemplated under Section 12 of the said Act of 2005. Only on this ground, the application is rejected. ( A.S. OKA, J )