The High Court · 2025

3. Mudunuri Jayasri, Wo l\Iudunuri Satyanarayana Raju, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No.24-12-31, Peddada Vari Veedhi, Srirampuram, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District - 534 202.

4. Mudunuri Satyanarayana Raju, S/o Late M. SubbaRaju, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Business, R/o D.No.1-405, Peddipalem, Anandapuram ltlandal, Beside Kings Function Hall, Visakhapatnam - 531 163.

5. Nadimpalli Aruna, Wo Late Ramanjaneya Raju, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, R/o D.No.1405, Peddipalem, Anandapuram Mandal, Beside Kings Function Hall, Visakhapatnam - 53't 163.

6. Mudunuri Venkata Suryanarayana Ra.ju, S/o Rambadri Raju, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o D.No.1'1l4/C, Nagavarapadu, Eluru Road, Gudivada, Krishna District, A.P. - 521301. ..Petitioners/Respondents AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. Gadiraju Jyothi Sree, Wo Nadimpalli Revanth Kumar Raju, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H. No.'1-2-3BlLl5O, 2"' Floor, Road No.3, lvlaruthi Nilayam, Lake View Colony, Behind Vertex Pristine, Nizampet, tt/edchal- lVlalkaj giri District. ...Respondents Petition under Section 447 of BNSS praying that in the Circumstances stated in the memorandum of Grounds of Transfer Criminal petition, the High Court may be pleased to withdraw and transfer DVC No.35 ot 2024 pending on the file of Hon'ble XV Addl Kukatpally to lll Addl IVletropolitan Magistrate, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at District and Sessions Judge. Family Court at Kukatpally. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High court rnay be pleased to stay all further pro.eedings in DVC No.35 of 2024 pending on the file of Hon'ble xv Addl. Metroporitan Magistrate, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, pending disposal of marn 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 ch Ravinder, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Assistant public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of sri K.V. Janardhan Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K' SUJANA Tr.Crl.P.No.99 of 2O24 ORDE& This Transfer Criminal Petition has been f,iled by the petitioners seeking the transfer of DVC No'35 of 2024 from the file of the learned XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' Medchal- o1 ths 1e61ned III Malkajgiri Additional District at KukatPallY to the hle District and Sessions Judge, FamilY Court at KukatPallY.

2.HeardSriCh.Ravinder,leamedcounselappearingonbehalf of the petitioners as well as Sri K'V' Janardhan Rao' learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No'2' Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 3. marriage between petitioner No' 1 ald respondent No'2 was solemnized on 1 1'O8'2022' However' differences arose between them due to her conversion to Christianity and other issues' He further submitted that petitioner No. r experienced harassment and mental torture from respondent No'2' which led him to travel to Dubai for some respite. Subsequently, he fell ill and had to return to Hyderabad for treatment' Respondent No'2 neither visited nor inquired about the health of petitioner No'1' ThereaJter' the 2 sKs,J Tr.Crl.P.No.99 of 2024 petitioners filed multiple transfer petitions, including Tr.C.M.P.No.298 of 2024 and Tr.Crl.P.No.79 of 2024, seeking to transfer related cases to the same Court for convenience and to avoid conflir:ting orders. Therefore, he prayed. that DVC No.35 of 2024 be transferred to the III Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum-Family Court at Kukatpally, as it would be convenient for both parties and would allow for better adjudication of the matter.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehementh' opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that a DVC case is triable by a Magistrate Court, whereas the Family Court is a Dlstrict Court. Therefore, the case cannot be transferred to the Fam ily Court. As such, he requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

5. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Anurag Agarwal vs. Poonam Agarwal IIee Mukim 1 , wherein it was observed that the objective behind the DVC is distinct and that such cases must be decided within 60 days. The Bombay High Court also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Danish vs. Abdul Wahab 1 Miscellaneous Civil Application No.159 of 2023 I l 3 SI(s,J Tr-Crl.P. o.99 of 2024 and Others vs. Farjana Mohammed Danish and Others 2 , wherein the Apex Court clearly held that proceedings under the DVC are summary in nature, with a legislatively mandated outer limit for disposal. As such, the courts were not inclined to allow the transfer petition and instead directed the Magistrate to dispose of the case within two months.

6. In the present case, the petitioners seek to transfer the DVC case from a Magistrate Court to the Family Court, which is a District Court. Given that the prescribed period for disposing of a DVC case is 60 days and that such proceedings are summary in nature, the transfer request is not maintainable.

7. Accordingly, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the learned XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, is directed to dispose of DVC No.35 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. /-." 22>q:z-z- oltLfua,S<- /8J Sd/.V. KAVITHA PUTY REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 5 The XV Addl. MetroPolitan Mag istrate, Medchal - The lll Addl. District and Sesstons Judge FamilY Court at KukatPallY One CC to Sri Ch Ravinder, Advoca te [OPUC] One CC to Sri K.V. Janardha Two CD CoPies n Rao, Advocate [OPUC] lkajgiri District a kamll) L HIGH COUR'T DATED:0410312025 ORDER TRCRLP.No.99 of 2024 :. -i nL S,A ,c u.i _1 ? 5 APB 2[25 k SlpA: .jiiEi) .d" DISMISSINC} OF THE TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION L(