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 2^nd 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 2^nd respondent is a MBA Graduate and was working at Bolster Solutions, Himayathnagar as a Visa Consultant. After separation in the year 2019, the 2^nd respondent started working as Sales Manager in Yantra EV, Himayatnagar. The petitioner has filed petition for divorce in July, 2019 and 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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, [2015 SCC Online Bom 6113], wherein in both cases, DVC is transferred to the Family Court.

6. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent relied on the judgment in Anurag Agarwal Vs Poonam Agarwal Nee Mukim, [Miscellaneous Civil Application No.159 of 2023] 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, [2024 SCC Online SC 1435], 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.

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