THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.511 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2024 passed in M.P.No.361 of 2023 in DVC.No.01 of 2023 by the Judge, Principal Family Court, Secunderabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/husband filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC seeking transfer of DVC No.01 of 2023 from the Family Court, Secunderabad, to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court III, Bangalore, contending that the DVC proceedings were originally instituted before the Magistrate Court at Bangalore and that, as per Section 12 of the PWDV Act, only a Magistrate has jurisdiction to try such cases. He submitted that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.466 of 2022 with T.P. (C) Nos.45-47/2021, transferred all the connected cases to Secunderabad, the Family Court lacked competence to entertain DVC proceedings, which are criminal in nature. The respondent/wife opposed the petition, denying the contention of the petitioner and asserting that, in accordance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the cases were rightly transferred to the competent Family Court, which had jurisdiction to try DVC matters under Section 26 of the PWDV Act, relying on recent decisions of the Kerala High Court. The trial Court, after hearing both sides and considering the statutory provisions and case law, held that the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain DVC proceedings and accordingly dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision case is filed.

3. Heard Sri B. Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. R. Swarnalatha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent – State and Sri S. Viplav Simha Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred both in law and on facts in dismissing the petition without properly appreciating the evidence and the settled legal principles governing jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. He contended that the DVC proceedings, being criminal in nature, could only be entertained by a Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act and not by a Family Court, and that the trial Court failed to consider this fundamental aspect. He further contended that the impugned order was contrary to the law, devoid of merits, and based on assumptions and surmises rather than acceptable legal evidence. He further submitted that the trial Court did not take into account the factual matrix, probabilities, and proportionalities of the case, and failed to appreciate that the respondent had developed the case with false and fictitious averments. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the criminal revision was not maintainable as it sought to challenge a well-reasoned order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already transferred the DVC and connected matrimonial cases from Bengaluru to the competent Family Court at Secunderabad, which rightly held that it had jurisdiction to try the DVC under Sections 7 and 20 of the Family Courts Act and Section 26 of the PWDV Act. He contended that Order VII Rule 11 was inapplicable to DVC proceedings and that the order of the Family Court was lawful, reasoned, and in line with judicial precedents. He further contended that trying all related cases before the Family Court would avoid conflicting decisions and cause no prejudice to the petitioner, who was only attempting to delay proceedings and evade his maintenance obligations. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Revision