IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REIVION PETITON No.143 OF 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 23.01.2026 Between:

Mokshasanavisu Venkata Joga Prashanth ...Petitioner AND Nandagiri Vyjanthi ...Respondent ORDER : (ORAL)

This civil revision petition is filed challenging the docket order dated

21.11.2025 and subsequent docket order dated 18.12.2025 passed by learned Family Court, Hanumakonda in F.C.O.P. (SR) No.2133 of 2025 filed by the petitioner seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short ‘Act 1955’) which was returned on the ground of lack of proper jurisdiction.

2. Mr. P.V.L. Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the docket order dated 21.11.2025 was passed by the Family Court returning the FCOP to be presented before the Court having jurisdiction. The petitioner re-presented the petition by explaining that both the petitioner and the respondent jointly resided in H.No.2-2-139/G/102, Lakshar Singaram, Naheem Nagar, Hanumakonda, which is evident by the electricity bills filed as document No.8. However, without considering the same, the Family Court again returned the petition on 18.12.2025. Learned counsel submitted that in paragraph No.(c) of the FCOP, it was clearly stated that “both the petitioner and the respondent along with their twin daughters shifted to Warangal and began residing there. During their stay at Warangal, the respondent expressed her desire to take up employment and she joined M/s. Sigma AVIT, Hyderabad on 18.03.2024.” Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent resided together within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court.

3. On perusal of the pleadings in paragraph No.(c) of the FCOP, it is very much clear averments are made stating that the petitioner and the respondent resided at Warangal. At the time of registering the case, the Family Court is bound to believe the averments in the pleadings on its face value. The petitioner and the respondent, as the case may be, cannot be compelled to file the case in another Court. The petitioner has a choice of jurisdiction. Section 19 of the Act 1955 provides option to the parties under Clauses (i) to (iv) to institute divorce case in any jurisdictional Court. As per Section 19(iii), petition can be presented before the Court within local limits of whose ordinary civil jurisdiction, the parties to the marriage last resided together. As it is categorically pleaded in paragraph No.(c) that both the parties have decided to stay in Warangal before separation, prima facie, the trial Court has territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. The docket orders dated 21.11.2025 and 18.12.2025 passed by the Family Court, Hanumakonda in F.C.O.P. (SR) No.2133 of 2025 are hereby set aside. It is made clear the observations made by this Court are only for the purpose of registering the FCOP. If any objection regarding the jurisdiction is taken by the respondent alleging that both the parties have not resided at Warangal or Hanumakonda, at that point of time, the Family Court may decide the issue of jurisdiction in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this civil revision petition, stand closed.

_______________________

B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J January 23, 2026

NOTE: Issue C.C. by 24.01.2026

(BO) RRK