IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Friday, July 22, 2011. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.R.C..No. 1257 of 2011 Between: Gaddipati Ramakrishna …Petitioner and Gaddipati Prasnthi and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.R.C..No. 1257 of 2011 JUDGMENT Heard the petitioner’s counsel. The husband is the petitioner. The first respondent – Gaddipati Prasanthi, who is the wife appeared in person. 2. The first respondent herein filed Domestic Violence Case – D.V.No. 29 of 2010 on the file of the court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal (trial court) seeking certain reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). It is seen that the husband remained ex parte, in the trial court and it passed order on 11.3.2011 directing the husband to provide shelter or secured alternative accommodation to the wife and her son consistent with their status. The trial court refused other reliefs. Questioning that order, the husband filed Crl.A.No. 38 of 2011 before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. That court by its order dated: 3-5-2011 made certain observations and ultimately remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal. In its order, the appellate court despite the fact that it remanded the matter back to the trial court made several observations as to why certain reliefs were not granted by the trial court. 3. The learned counsel or the husband has pointed out that while remanding the matter the appellate court should not have made those observations as they may prejudice his case before the trial court. Smt. Prashanthi, wife is present and it appears that she is not aware of the legal technicalities and went on submitting that her husband was not justified in neglecting her and her son. She however says that she is ready to go and stay with her husband in the interests of their child and family but this aspect relate to merits of the matter. It may be noted that either the trial court or the appellate court did not discuss the matter on merits. Hence it is not possible for this court now to pass any order on the wife’s request relating to merits. 4. In the circumstances, while setting aside all the observations of the appellate court and confirming its order of remand, the matter is now sent back to the Learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District to deal with matter without being influenced in any manner either by the observations made in the appellate court’s order or in the earlier order of the trial court and even in this order. 5. It is stated that the husband has to come from Mumbai and the wife, Smt. Prashanthi is staying in Alwal, Secunderabad, as such the court at Malkajgiri will be nearer to respondent and the petitioner’s counsel also says that the said court will be convenient to him also. Hence the above transfer arrangement is made. 6. The learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, to which now the matter is transferred, is directed to take steps immediately to dispose of this matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both sides are directed to cooperate with the court. 7. The matter shall be called in the court of XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri on 2-8-2011. 8. With the above directions the revision case is disposed of. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. July 22, 2011. *BVS Note: 1) The Registry is directed to dispatch the order immediately. 2) A copy of this order shall also be marked to the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad. (BO) BVS.