Telangana High Court
Vishal Raj Karunala, vs The State Of Telangana on 19 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.9 of 2025
ORDER:
This transfer criminal petition is filed by the petitioners
seeking transfer of DVC.No.324 2021 from the Court of IV-
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kalpataru Integrated Family Court,
Hyderabad to the Principal Family Court, Kalpataru Integrated
Family Court, Hyderabad for joint trial with FCOP.No.985 of
2019.
2. Heard Ms G.V.S.S.Sruthi, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Ibad Ur Rahman Khan, learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the marriage of petitioner No.1 with the 2nd respondent
was performed in the year 2017 and he used to work as
Software Engineer and 2nd respondent is a MBA Graduate and
was working at Bolster Solutions, Himayathnagar as a Visa
Consultant. After separation in the year 2019, the 2nd
respondent started working as Sales Manager in Yantra EV,
Himayatnagar. The petitioner has filed petition for divorce in
July, 2019 and 2nd respondent made a false complaint under
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code in December 2020 and
filed D.V.C, in the year 2021 and even she filed 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 2nd respondent. As such, DVC and M.C., may also be
transferred to the same Court to club with FCOP No.985 of
2019 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 2nd
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 Machindra Mulim Vs Mohini Mithu Choudhari 1
Misc.Civil Application No.64 of 2019
and Minoti Subhash Anand Vs Subhash Manoharlal
Anand 2 , wherein in both cases, DVC is transferred to the
Family Court.
6. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied on the
judgment in Anurag Agarwal Vs Poonam Agarwal Nee
Mukim 3 of the same Bombay High Court which is subsequent
to the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, wherein it is observed that the object behind the
DVC is different and there is only 60 days time for taking
decision in the DVC. The Bombay High Court also relied on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed
Danish Vs Abdul Wahab and others Vs Farjana Mohammed
Danish and Others 4, wherein the Apex Court clearly observed
that proceedings under DVC being summary in nature, where
the legislature has consciously given an outer limit, as such,
they are not inclined to allow the transfer petition instead,
directed the Magistrate to dispose of the same within two
months.
2 2015 SCC Online Bom 6113
3 Miscellaneous Civil Application No.159 of 2023
4 2024 SCC Online SC 1435
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 2021 as early as possible.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 19.02.2025
Rds
