The High Court · 2025

Dr. Karuna Sri Vanka, w/o Gujjula Pratap Reddy, Aged about. 42 years , Occ Doctor, R/o Dharani Hospital, Huzurnagar, Kodad, Suryapet District, Telangana.

3. G. Sathwik, S/o Prathap Reddy, Aged about 0B years, Occ. Minor, Rep. by his natural mother, Dr. Karuna Sri Vanka w/o Gujjula Pratap Reddy, Aged about. 42 years , Occ. Doctor, Rio Dharani Hospital, Huzurnagar, Kodad, Suryapet District, Telangana. ... Respondents/Respondents/Complai nant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Order Dt. 22.04.2024 passed in Crl.R.P.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Suryapet, and consequential Order Dt. 29.O1 .2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.159 of 2023 in D V.C.No. 29 of 2022 on the file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kodad. l.A. NO: 2OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that ir stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, t r pleased to stay all further proceedings in Order Dt. 1l: Crl.R.P.No.2 of 202'.4 on the file of the Principal Sessions J consequential Order Dt. 29.1 .2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.159 29 ol 2022 on the file of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrrr disposal of the above criminal petition. the circumstances r High Court may be .4.2024 passed in rdge, Suryapet, and tf 2023 in D.V.C.No. e at Kodad, pending l.A. NO: 3 OF 2024

1. Dr. Karuna Sri Vanka, w/o Gujjula Pratap Reddy, Aged ;l ,out. 42 years , Occ. Doctor, Rl/o Dharani Hospital, Huzurnagar, Kodad, Sury.r ret Distnct, Telangana.

2. G. Sathwik, S/o Prathap Reddy, Aged about 08 years, C)( c. Ivlinor, Rep. by his natural mother, Dr. Karuna Sri Vanka w/o Gujjula Pratap leddy, Aged about. 42 yearc, Occ. Doctor, Rio Dharani Hospital, Huzurnag;r , Kodad, Suryapet District, Telangana. ...Petitioners/Re ;pondent Nos.2 & 3 AND 1 2 4 Dr. Gujjula Pratap Reddy, S/o Saidi Reddy, Aged alrr ut. 45 years , Occ. Doctor, Rl/o Plot No.11-3-1211, Sunrise Golden Residr: cy, Ankura Hospital Road, Balaji Nagar, Khammam City and District. Gujjula Venkata Rami Reddy, S/o. Saidi Reddy, Age. 5C ,ears, Occ. Business R/o Plot No.'l 1-3-12l1 , Sunrise Golden Residency, Ar: <ura Hospital Road, Balaji Nagar, Khammam City and District. Gujjula Punyavathi, w/o Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged at rut. 43 years , Occ. House Wife, Rl/o Plot No.11-3-12l1 , Sunrise Golde I Residency, Ankura Hospital RoaC, Baiaji Nagar, Khammam City and Distric . Gujjula Achamma, w/o Saidi Reddy, Aged about. 68 yeir s , Occ. House Wife, Rl/o Plot No,11-3-'12l1 , Sunrise Golden Residency, Ar <ura Hospital Road, Balaji Nagar, Khammam City and District.

5. The State of Telangana, rep.by,its Public Prosecutor Hig I Court for the State of Telangana at, Hyderabad ...Resp,r ndents /Petitioners Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that r the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, tlrr High Court may be pleased to vacate the orders dated 2610412024 in Crl.P. r r.4791 of 2024 by dismissing the present Criminal Petition. ...Resp < nde nt./Res pondent l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the early date of hearing of criminal petition No.47g1 of 2024. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri p Vishnuvardhana Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri Ram Chandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K Pradeep Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER I i I I ! i I I I I I , I i I I i IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVP I )I SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4791 of 2t)14 DATED: DECEMBER 2025 Between Dr Gujjula Pratap Reddy and three others Petitioners AND The State of Telangana represented by Public Prosecutor and two others Respondents ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitio^:rs seeking to quash the impugned order dated 22.04.2A2 4 passed in CRL R P No 2 of 2024 by the learned Principal Sr ssions Judge, Suryapet, (for short 'learned Sessions Judge ) ;onfirming the order dated 29012024 passed in CRL lVl.P.No '59 of 2023 in D V C No 29 of 2022 by the learned prir :ipal Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class, Kodad (for shor: ,the learned lMagistrate'), whereby the petition filed by the res;l rondent Nos.2 and 3 herein was allowed and custody of tir minor child, Karthik Reddy, was granted to the respondent llo.2 by taking the child from the petitioner No 1 2

02. Heard Sri P. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Srr M Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. Perused the record 03 As seen from the record, the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 are husband and wife and both are Doctors by profession. They were blessed with twin boys namely Sathwik Reddy and Karthik Reddy Certain matrimonial disputes arose between them and in that context F C.O P.No 211 of 2022, G.W.O.P.No.22 of 2023 and D V C.No.29 of 2022 came to be instituted before the competent Coutls. The present Criminal Petition is filed questioning the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge confirming the interim order passed by the learned lVlagistrate granting custody of the minor child, Karthik Reddy, to the mother i.e. respondent No.2

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent No.2 had originally filed a petition seeking visiting rights to see Karthik Reddy, but the learned Magistrate, without any specific prayer seeking transfer of custody, , t I I I I 3 proceeded to grant permanent custody of the mirt lr child to the respondent No.2 lt is further submitted that th: child is very much attached to the petitioner No.1 and that tle respondent No.2 parted with the child long back in Novemker,20'19 and that ever since then, the child has been continu lusly residing with petitioner No 1 for about five years. lt is fu'1 rer submitted that the petitioner No.1 has also instituted a divorr -'case, which has been transferred to the Court of the learn,: i Senior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar. Hence, the impugne: orders are unsustainabl,: and prayed to set aside the same 05 Per contra, learned counsel for :he unofficial respondents submitted that the petitioner r c.1 and the respondent No 2 were married in the year 2( 08 and were blessed with male twins in the year 2016. lt is c ontended that the petitioner No 1 developed suspicion, startec rarassing and threatening the respondent No. 2, and ultimatel5' :ompelled her to leave the matrimonial home, while also denying her access to the children. With great difficulty, she could set tre custody of one child Sathwik Reddy. Thereafter, she filed tr.V.C.No.29 of 2022 along with a petition seeking custody of ttr r second child 4 Karthik Reddy, and the learned tVlagistrate, having considered the material on record, allowed the said petition and granted custody, which order has been confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order. lt is further contended that, instead of availing and pursuing the statutory remedy available under Section 2g the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.

06. lt is to be noted that this Court by order dated 26.04.2024 granted interim stay of the impugned order. Thereafter, on 02.05.2024 this Court interacted with the minor child Karthik Reddy, and being satisfied that with the answers, extended the interim order tiil disposar of the criminar petition. Subsequently, on 21 .Og.2024, at the request of both parties, this Court also permitted celebration of the birthday of the children at Suryapet.

07. ln the present case, the material placed on record show that the minor child Karthik Reddy, has been residing with petitioner No.1 for a considerable period, ever since November,

2019. This Court also had an occasion to interact with the child 5 and based on such interaction, considered it appropriate to continue the interim arrangement by staying :l e operation of the impugned order. At the same time, it is no in dispute that the respondent No.2 is the mother of the child i also a Doctor by profession, and that she claims to have beer constrained to live away from the matrimonial home due to llleged acts of cruelty and harassment

08. The record discloses that, apart fror D.V.C. No. 29 of 2022, there are other substantive proceedrr gs, including a guardiansh;p petition rn G.W.O.P.No.22 of 2023, in which the rssue of custody and guardianship of the tlt'i I sons can be comprehensively adjudicated. ln such a situati )n, this Court is of the opinion that a final order on the meri.r of the interim custody granted in the DVC proceedings, v hile exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., may not be appropriate, particularly when it may prejudice the adjudicil ion in the main DVC and GWOP proceedings 09 Upon hearing the submissions rf the learned counsel appearing for both sides and on perus€ I of the material available on record, it is evident that the rela:i :nship between 6 the parties is not in dispute and that among two children one chrld is with the wife and one child is with the husband lVloreover, there are allegations of domestic violence Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the matter involves disputed questions of fact, which are triabre in nature, and the truth or otherwise of the allegations can be determined only upon conclusion of the trial.

10. Considering the submissions made by the learned 'counsel on both sides, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account that the main case pertains to the year 2022, without going into the merits and demerits of the case, this Criminal petition is disposed of by directing the learned trial Court to proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this Order and shall dispose of the main case ie DVC No.29 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. Till the main case D.V.C.No.29 of 2022 is finally disposed of, the minor child, Karthik Reddy, shall continue to remain in the custody of the petitioner No. 1, as is the present position pursuant to the interim orders of this Court. However, the 7 I respondent No.2-mother shall be entit < d to have visitation/interaction with the minor child, Kart tik Reddy, on such dates and timings as may be mutually agr€)( d between the parties; and in case of any dispute, it is open t,: either party to move an appropriate application before the lear red Magistrate in D.V.CNo.29 of 2022, who shall pass rerrsoned orders regarding visitation, keeping in view the welfare c i the child As a sequel, pending miscellaneous app i >ations, if any, shail stand closed I BFIAVANI SWAMY TANT REGISTRAR sd/- ASS t. //TRUE COPY// r*\;r: SECTION OFFICER To, Hyderabad (OUT) 1, The Principal Judicial First Class lvlagistrate at Kodad 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Sta e of Telangana at 3. One CC to Sri P Vishnuvardhana Reddy, Advocate [Opl.,l ]l 4. One CC to SRI K Pradeep Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies ADI(kam HIGH COURT DATED:1611212025 -t t, a. ,{ % q o LL $b H Dl'ri + i t- 'J.- ,.Ii ORDER CRLP.No.4791 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE CRLP a s ,..) t