IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:23.01.2026 Between:

Mahesh Matam and 4 others …Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 5 And State of Telangana, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and another.

... Respondents

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 in DVC No.55 of 2025 on the file of IV Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri K. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in the pending DVC No.55 of 2025. He further has submitted that there is no domestic relationship as such between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.2 and that the couple got divorced long ago and the present petition is filed as an afterthought, just to harass the petitioners. He further submitted that the matrimonial disputes were amicably settled vide orders dated 18.04.2023 of the Superior Court of Forsyth County, State of Georgia. He further submitted that subsequent to the decree of divorce, the petitioner No.1 received a derogatory mail from the respondent No.2 herein on 16.10.2023, to which the petitioner No.1 issued reply and that in the said mail respondent No.2 has threatened him of initiating criminal proceedings against him. He further submitted that with an attitude of vengeance, the respondent No.2 has lodged the present complaint and that their children have filed affidavits to the effect that they are getting vexed with the attitude of their mother and that she is raising false allegations against the petitioners herein. He further has submitted that the DVC proceedings have been initiated after an extraordinary delay and that continuing the DVC proceedings would be re-agitating the already settled issues, which also amounts to abuse of process of law. He further argued that it is not the case of the petitioners that the DVC is not maintainable after a decree of divorce, but the respondent No.2 being a foreign citizen and having effectively divorced in US and having derived the benefit of decree of divorce by way of funds/monies and division of assets, cannot turn around and filed DVC proceedings claiming that the divorce in US is not conclusive and hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that the DVC is filed with regard to harassment meted out by the respondent No.2 during her stay with the petitioners herein and while there was domestic relationship existing between the parties. The petitioners are raising all false grounds and that the respondent No.2 has raised her objections before the Superior Court of Forsyth County, State of Georgia, which were not considered and that she has not filed any amendment consenting for the divorce. He further contended that in the judgment of Superior Court of Forsyth County, State of Georgia dated 18.04.2023, it is mentioned that the respondent No.2 herein had filed an amendment wherein she agreed that the marriage had been broken irrevocably, but the said settlement is false that she never filed any amendment. He further submitted that the decree of divorce granted by the Superior Court is not enforceable in India as the same is obtained by means of fraud and that the petitioner No.1-husband has not filed any application under Section 44-A C.P.C. in India for execution of the decree passed by the Courts in reciprocating territory and that the DVC is very much maintainable and the proceedings cannot be quashed against the petitioners.

5. Perused the record.

6. The allegations against the petitioners is that they have harassed the res