The High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad Swetha Pitla @Swetha Karunala,, Wo.Vishal Raj Karunala, D/o.Gopinath Pitla, age. 40 yrs, Occ. EmployedMorking, Rl/o.H.No.7-3-134l3,Ghand mandi, Secunderabad-03 ,T. S. ...RESPONDENT AND 1. 2. Petitioner under Section 447 of BNSS praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to transfer the DVC No. 324 of 2021 on the file of lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kalpaturu lntegrated Family Court, Hyderabad to Principal Family Court, Kalpaturu lntegrated Family Court, Hyderabad for joint trial with FCOP NO. 985 of 2019 . LA. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 447 (6) CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay in trial of DVC No. 324 of 2021 pending on the file of lV trial Metropolitan Magistrate, lntegrated Family Court, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above transfer criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. V. S. S.SRUTHI, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri IBAD UR RAHMAN KHAN, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.9 of 2O25 ORDER: This transf-er criminal petilion is frled by tlrr: petitioners seeking transfer of DVC.No.324 2O2l from the (lourt of IV- Metropolitan 1\{agistrate, Kalpataru lntegrated Feimily Court, Hyderabad to the: Principal Family Court, Kalpataru Integrated Family Court, Hyderabad for joint trial with FCCrP.No.9SS of 20t9.

2. Heard Ms G.V.S.S.Sruthi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri lbad Ur Rahman Khan, learnecl counsel for the 2nd respon<lent. 3 The contention of learned counsel for the p'etitioners is that the marriage of petitioner No.l with the 2r!d respondent was performecl in the year 2Ol7 and he usecl to work as Software Enginer:r and 2"d respondent is a MBA (]raduate and was working a.t Bolster Solutions, Himayathnagar as a Visa Consultant. Al'ter separation in the year 2t)19, t}:re 2"d respondenl started working as Sales Manager in Yantra EV, Himayatnagar. The petitioner has filed petition for divorce in 2 July, 2019 and 2na respondent made a false complaint under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code in December 2O2O and filed D.V.C, in the year 2O2l and even she hled M.C. in the year 2022. It is further contended that petitioner is not having employment and .in addition he is made to run around multiple Courts because of the false and baseless cases filed by the 2"a respondent. As such, DVC and M.C., may also be transferred to the same Court to club with FCOP No.985 of 2O 19 and requested this Court to transfer the same to the Family Court at Kalpataru Building, Hyderabad.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2"d respondent vehemently opposed the same stating that D.V.C. case is triable by a Magistrate Court whereas, the Family Court is a District Court, it cannot be transferred to the Family Court. As such, requested the Court to dismiss this petition.

5. While arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Santosh Mechindra Mulim Vs Mohini Mithu Choudl'arir 'Misc.Civil Application No.64 of 2019 3 and Minoti Subhash Anand Vs Subhash Manoharlal Anand2 , whcrein in both cases, DVC is transfr:r'red to the Family Court

6. The letrrned counsel for the 2"d respondent rr:lied on the judgment in Anurag Agarwal Vs Poonam Aganral Nee Mukimsoft}resameBombayHighCourtwhichissubsequent to the judgment relied on by the learned cou n sel for the pelitioners, u'h,rrein it is observed that the object behind the DVCisdiffcrerrtandthereisonly60daystinx:fortaking decision in the DVC. The Bombay High Court also relied on the judgment ,lf the Hontrle Supreme Court in Mohammed Danish Vs Abdul Wahab and others Vs Farjana Mohammed Danish and othersa, wherein the Apex Court clearly observed that procee<lings under DVC being summary in Irzlture' where the legislature has consciously given an outer limit' as such' they are not inclinecl to allow the transfer petition instead' directed thc Magistrate to dispose of the same within two months. , 20 15 SCC Or.rlirre Bom 6l 13 3 Miscella:neous Oivil Application No-159 of2023 4 2024 SCC Onlitre SC 1435 , I I I 4 o

7. In the present case, the request of the petitioners is to transfer DVC case from Magistrate Court to the Family Court, which is a District Court and the period to dispose of the DVC case is 60 days, which is a summary proceeding. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohammad Danish Abdul Wahab, petitioners are not entitled for the relief claimed in this case.

8. Accordingly, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the learned IV-Metropolitan Magistrate, Kalpataru Integrated Family Court, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of DVC.No.324 of 2O2l as early as possible. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. P.CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ l ECTION OFFICER To

1. The lV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kalpaturu lntegrated Family Court, Hyderabad.

2. The Principal Family Court, Kalpaturu lntegrated Family Court, Hyderabad 3. One CC to SRl. G.V. S. S. SRUTHI, Advocate [OPUCI 4. One CC to Sri lbad Ur Rahman Khan, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:19102|2025 ORDER TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.9 of 2025 DISMISSING THE TR. CRL.PETITION ,/1 .t(ov-' ae Sre 14: ,-) '15 APR 2[25 + t t gO 9r S PAlCH o( z o I 'lo