MP/MLA Courts Not Meant for Matrimonial Disputes: Supreme Court In Raja Bhaiya Case

The Supreme Court has ruled that a matrimonial dispute cannot be taken before a special court designated for cases involving MPs and MLAs merely because one of the parties is a legislator.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran pointed out that special courts for MPs/MLAs were designated to try criminal cases against sitting and former legislators under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and special legislations, pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court in a public interest litigation filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

Explaining the purpose behind setting up such courts, the Bench observed that they were intended to address the large pendency of criminal cases against legislators and ensure public accountability, vigilance and prevention of corruption.

"Large pendency and delay occasioned, prompted this court to pass orders directing designations of special courts to ensure public accountability, promote vigilance and prevention of corruption. We are 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 Bench said.

Background of the case

The ruling came while the Court was hearing a plea filed by Uttar Pradesh MLA Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya challenging a May 30, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court.

The petitioner and respondent Bhanvi Kumari Singh are involved in a matrimonial dispute, leading to multiple legal proceedings. One of those proceedings, initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), was the subject matter of the present special leave petition.

The Supreme Court noted that the controversy before it was limited to whether proceedings before the Special MP/MLA Court at Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi, were maintainable in view of the territorial jurisdiction prescribed under Section 27 of the PWDV Act.

Originally, the domestic violence case had been filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. It was later withdrawn and moved before the Special MP/MLA Court, allegedly to secure expeditious disposal.

The Delhi High Court had upheld this course of action by relying on various Supreme Court decisions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2016).

Case transferred back to Saket Court

However, the Supreme Court clarified that it was not deciding the larger legal issue.

"We are not called upon to decide the question of law since the respondent who was present-in person was more concerned about the expeditious disposal of the case," the Bench observed.

During the hearing, counsel for both parties consented to transferring the case back to the court where it had originally been instituted, namely the Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

Court also made it clear that its observations were only prima facie and that the larger question of law remained open for consideration in an appropriate case.

Accordingly, on the consent of the parties, the Bench directed that the case pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Rouse Avenue Courts be transferred to the Metropolitan Magistrate-02 (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

The Bench further requested the Mahila Court to explore the possibility of disposing of the case within one year and directed both parties to cooperate in ensuring its expeditious conclusion.

Case Title: Raghuraj Pratap Singh Vs Bhanvi Kumari Singh

Bench: J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran

Date of Judgment: July 15, 2026