Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 170 (TS)

Tangella Ramesh v. State of Telangana

2022-03-09

KUNURU LAKSHMAN

body2022
ORDER : Kunuru Lakshman, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public, Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record. 2. The 2nd respondent herein has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 vide DVC. No. 16 of 2016 against the petitioner herein claiming that he is her husband and sought certain reliefs against him in the said DVC. The petitioner herein filed an application vide Crl.M.P. No. 62 of 2017 in DVC. No. 16 of 2016 seeking to decide the 'domestic relationship' as preliminary issue. Vide impugned order dated 20.01.2022, learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on the ground that the application filed by the 2nd respondent was registered and the same cannot be reviewed and domestic relationship can be decided after full fledged trial. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very domestic relationship of parties is in dispute, it has to be decided as a preliminary issue. 4. High Court of Kerala in Joby vs. Eisy & Ors., Crl.R.P. No. 1129 of 2013 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmansinh Rampalsinh Jat vs. Sangeett ben Laxmansinh Jat, 2014 SCC Online Guj 3251 held that the domestic relationship cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. 5. This Court in A. Revanth Reddy vs. The Court of Telangana through ACB, CIV, Hyderabad in (Crl.R.C. No. 133 of 2021) referring to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaushik Chatterjee vs. State of Haryana (2020) 10 SCC 92 he id that jurisdictional fact cannot be decided as preliminary issue. It is the defense accused has to take during the trial and is for the trial Court to consider the same. 6. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that domestic relationship cannot be decided as preliminary issue. Learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) Kamareddy rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner vide order 20.01.2022. There is no error in it and it does not warrant interference by this Court. DVC is of the year 2016. As per 12(5) of the Act, the same has to be disposed of within 60 days from the first date of hearing. There is no error in it and it does not warrant interference by this Court. DVC is of the year 2016. As per 12(5) of the Act, the same has to be disposed of within 60 days from the first date of hearing. Therefore, the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile) Kamareddy, is directed to dispose of the said DVC in accordance with law within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.