Back
2022 Supreme(Telangana) 352
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
Tangella Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 2189 of 2022
Decided On : 09-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Advocate
Domestic relationship cannot be decided as a preliminary issue in a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Headnote:
Domestic Violence Act - Domestic Relationship - The court held that domestic relationship cannot be decided as a preliminary issue based on the law laid down by the Apex Court and dismissed the petitioner's application seeking to decide the 'domestic relationship' as a preliminary issue.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application seeking to decide the 'domestic relationship' as a preliminary issue in response to a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the 2nd respondent claiming that he is her husband and seeking certain reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that domestic relationship cannot be decided as a preliminary issue based on the law laid down by the Apex Court and dismissed the petitioner's application. The court also directed the disposal of the Domestic Violence Case within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Issues: The main issue was whether the domestic relationship can be decided as a preliminary issue in a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the law laid down by the High Court of Kerala and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which held that domestic relationship cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. The court also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana, which stated that jurisdictional fact cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application seeking to decide the 'domestic relationship' as a preliminary issue and directed the disposal of the Domestic Violence Case within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.
ORDER :
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public, Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.
2. The 2nd respondent herein has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide DVC. No. 16 of 2016 against the petitioner herein claiming that he is her husband and sought certain reliefs against him in the said DVC. The petitioner herein filed an application vide Crl.M.P. No. 62 of 2017 in DVC. No. 16 of 2016 seeking to decide the 'domestic relationship' as preliminary issue. Vide impugned order dated 20.01.2022, learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on the ground that the application filed by the 2nd respondent was registered and the same cannot be reviewed and domestic relationship can be decided after full fledged trial.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very domestic relationship of parties is in dispute, it has to be decided as a preliminary issue.
4. High Court of Kerala in Joby vs. Eisy & Ors., Crl.R.P. No. 1129 of 2013 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmansinh Rampalsinh Jat vs. Sangeett ben Laxmansinh Jat, 2014 SCC Online Guj 3251 held that the domestic relationship cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
5. This Court in A. Revanth Reddy vs. The Court of Telangana through ACB, CIV, Hyderabad in (Crl.R.C. No. 133 of 2021) referring to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana (2020) 10 SCC 92 he id that jurisdictional fact cannot be decided as preliminary issue. It is the defense accused has to take during the trial and is for the trial Court to consider the same.
6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that domestic relationship cannot be decided as preliminary issue. Learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) Kamareddy rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order 20.01.2022. There is no error in it and it does not warrant interference by this Court. DVC is of the year 2016. As per 12(5) of the Act, the same has to be disposed of within 60 days from the first date of hearing. Therefore, the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) Kamareddy, is directed to dispose of the said DVC in accordance with law within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.
