Pericherla Pavan v. 1. The State of Telangana

2. Smt. Lalitha Pericherla, Wo Pericherla Pavan, D/o P.Ranga Raju, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.404, Pavani Homes, Lakshmi Ganga Enclave, Pet Basheerbad, Jeedimetla Village, Hyderabad also Plot No.33, Bhavana Colony, lll Phase, New Bowenpally, Secunderbad. ...RespondenUComplainant lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in DVC.No.1 of 2023, on the fie of the Hon'ble Judge Principal Family Court at Secunderabad lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Lalitha Pericherla, Wo Pericherla Pavan, D/o P.Ranga Raju, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.404, Pavani Homes, Lakshmi Ganga Enclave, Pet Basheerbad, Jeedimetla Village, Hyderabad. also Plot No.33, Bhavana Colony, lll Phase, New Bowenpally, Secunderbad AND '1 . Pericherla Pavan, S/o Mr. Ramabhad riRaju.P, Occ. Grazing Cattle, Aged about 44 years R/o. No. 912, sth Block BEL Layout, Vidyaranyapura ...Petitioner/Respondent 2/Complainant Bengaluru-560 097 Presently Residing at Flat No.302 )LR Residency, KSR Enclave, Apparna Hill park, Road, Chandanagar Hyderrr rad.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prose, utor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. ...Res 1 ondenURespondent Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying thar ir the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thr: High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in lA.No.0l ) 2024 dated 0B 01- IUZS Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B. Ramesh, Senior Counsel epresenting Smt. R. Swarnalatha Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri D. Arun Kumar, Additional Public Prose : rtor Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri S. Viplav Simha Recir y The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT, JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.511 of 2o24 ! ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging thc ordcr dared 23.O1-2024 passed in M.P.No.36 I of 2023 in DVC.No 0l of 2023 by the Judge, Principal Family Court, Secunderabad-

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ husbzrncl filed a petition under Order VII Rule 1 I read with Scction 151 CPC seeking transfer ot DVC No.01 of 2023 from the Family Court, Secunderabad, to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tralfic Court III, Bangalore, contending that the DVC proceedings \\re rc originally institutcd before the Magistrate Court at Bangalore and that, as per Section 12 of the PWDV Act, only a Magistrate has jurisdiction to try such cases. He submitled lliat thougl-r the Honble Supreme Court, in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.466 of 2022 u,ith T.P. (C) Nos.45-47 l2O2l, transferred all the connected cases to Secunderabad, the Family Court lacked competence to entertain DVC proceedings, which are criminal in nature. The respondent/wife opposed the petition, denying the contention of the petitioner and asserting that, in accordance \ \ 2 SI(s,J Crl.l .C.No.511of2024 \a,ith the or(l('r of thc Hon'ble Supreme Court. 1r l cases were rightly translirred to the competent Family Col,r -, which had jurrsdiction lo tn l)VC nlatLers under Section !l{, cf thc PWDV Act, relying on rcocnL clecisions ol the Kerala.Hi1,l Court. The lrial Clourt. after hearing both sides and cr r sidering the statutorv pr-ovisions and case law, held that thr ramrly Court has jurisdit t ion t() cntertain DVC proceedings rt r I accordingly clismissed thc petition. Aggrreved thereby, the prr senr criminal revision casc is fik:d.

3. I learrl Sri U. Ramesh, learned Se ' or Counsel representing Smt. R. Swarnalatha, learned coul ;e l appearing on behalf ol lhe petitioner as rvell as Sri D. Arun I., rmar, learned Adclitional l'ublic l)roseeutor appearing on r:half of the respondent State and Sri S. Viplav Simha ll ddy, Iearned counscl aplrcaring on behalf of respondent No.2. 4, Learnccl counsel for thc petitioner submittt c that the trial Court crred both in larv and on facts in dismissjr q the petition without propcrly appreciating the evidence and t r ) settled legal prir-rciples governing jurisdiction under the Protc( t on of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2O05. He contenderl that the DVC procee dings, being criminal in nature, could only I ,e entertained I I 3 SKS,J Crl.R-c.No.511 of 2024 by a Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act and not by a Family Court, and that the trial Court failed to consider this fundamcn tal aspecl. He further contended that the impugnecl order u,as contrary to the law, devoid of mcrits, and based on assumptions and surmises rather than acceptable legal evidence . He further submitted that the trial Court did not takc into account the factual matrix, probabilities, and proportion alities of the case, and faiied to appreciate that the rcspondent had dcveloped lhe case with false and hctitions averments. There[ore, he prayed the Court to set aside tl'r<: order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case'

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No 2 submitted that the criminal revision was not maintainable as it sought to challenge a well-reasoned order passed under Ordcr VII Rule 11 CPC. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already transferred the DVC and connected matrimonial cases from Bengaluru to the competcnt Family Court at Secunderabad, which rightly held that it had jurisdiction to try the DVC under Sections 7 and 20 of the Family Courts Act and Section 26 of the PWDV Act. He contended that Order VII Rule 11 was inapplicable to DVC \ 4 SKS,J Crl I .C.No.s11 of 2024 proccedings irnd that the order of the Famill,Cor r _ was lawful, reasoncd, arrd in line u,ith judicial preccdents He furthcr contencled thu{ trl.rng all relatcd cases belore th<. .amilv Court r,r,ould avorcl conflicting dt:cisions erncl cause no 1r r judice to the pe titioncr, n'lto $,zrs only atte rnpting to delay pr,; eedings and evade his nr:rintenance obligations. Therefore, ,r, praved the Clourt to disntiss the Criminal Rcvision Casc.

6. In the light of thc submissions madc by bo, thc learned counsel and i rpon ltcrus.rl of t1-rc rnalerial availatrl , on record, it is an admittcd fact that all thc connected prrr,. Cdir]gs were transferred liom thc Courts at Bengaluru to the Frr nily Court at Secundcrabacl b1. virtue of the orders passed b,, the Hon,ble Supremc Court in Transler petition (Civil) No.46t-r r | 2022 along u.ith T.P. (C) Nos.45 17 ctf 2021. The Hon'ble S r rremc Court specifically directed that the matters be transl, rred to the competent Court/F-amily Court at Secunderabad. 1.he primary issue for cotrsidcratron hefore this Court is whetl r r th e Family Court is competent to try a case under the protecri ,r) of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 7 . At this stage, it is perline nt to note that Se( t on 12 of the PWDV Act mandates that an apphcation by an agg r r:vecl person 5 sKs,J Crl.R-C.No.511 of 2024 shall be presented before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, whereas Section 26 of the same Act expressly provides that any relief available under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the AcL may also be sought in any legal proceeding before a Civil Court, Family Court, or Criminal Court. Further, Section 7(2)(b) of the Famiiy Courts Act, 1984 confcrs such additional jurisdiction on the F amill, Court as may be provided under any oLher cnactmcnt. In vien, of lhcse provisions, the Family Court is lcgally e mpowered to cntertain and adj udicate reliefs under the PWDV Act u,hen such proccedings are transferred to it or are pending alongsidc matrimonial causes.

8. In thc present casc, r,"'hi1c the criminal case under Section 498 A IPC rvas rightly returned to the jurisdictional criminal court at Bengaluru since lhe F-amily Court lacks competence to tr5r criminal oflences under the lPC, the DVC proceedings, being civil in nature for the purpose of gralting reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the PWDV Act, can be effectively tried by the Family Court. Morcover, the transfer order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court having specihcally designated the Farnily Court at \ t Secunderabad/ competent Court, as such, the jurisdiction of the said Courl cannot now be questioned. I \ 6 SKS,J (r R.C.No.511of 2024 .: '- '"::,.J'.-:

9. Accordingll-, this Court does not find a r i. illegality or irregularity- in t he order of the trial Court ho ling that the Ir-amily Court, Secunderabad, has jurisdiction r try the DVC case along u,ith the othcr matrimonial proccedir Lg ;. I{ence , the Criminal Revision casc is clevoid of mcrit and th,t same is liabie to bc clismisscd. 1O. In vieu' thereof, this Criminal Revision Ca,;, is clismissed confirmrng the order datcd 211.01.2O24 passed ir., l.p.No.361 of 2023 in DVC.No.O i ot '2023 b-_v the Juclge, Pr i Li:ipal Family Court, Secunder:rltad. Miscellaneous applications, if any pcndinl shall stand closed SD/. ).GOWRI SHANKAR t EPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// The Judge, Principal Family Court at Secunderabad. Two ccs to the Pubric prosecutor, High court for the , itate of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sri R Swarnalatha, Advocate tOpUCl 9n" 99 to Sri S. Viptav Simha Reddy, Advocate [OeU: 1 Two CD Copies "w I { oT 1 2 J 4. t Kam/P HIGH COURT DATED:1 311112025 ORDER CRLRC.No.S11 of 2024 :^*. i i,:j Pffi .t I .-; '..,1-. .\z '\. DISMISSING THE CRLRC \re6