ORDER:

This Transfer Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the transfer of DVC No.35 of 2024 from the file of the learned XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally to the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Family Court at Kukatpally.

2. Heard Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri K.V. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 11.08.2022. However, differences arose between them due to her conversion to Christianity and other issues. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 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. Thereafter, the 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 conflicting 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 vehemently 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 District Court. Therefore, the case cannot be transferred to the Family 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 Nee Mukim, [Miscellaneous Civil Application No.159 of 2023], 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 and Others vs. Farjana Mohammed Danish and Others, [2024 SCC Online SC 1435] , 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.

______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 04.03.2025 SAI