HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Transfer Criminal Petition Nos.243 and 244 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Transfer Criminal Petition No.243 of 2008 is for transfer of D.V.C. No.18 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to the Family Court, Hyderabad and Transfer Criminal Petition No.244 of 2008 is a petition for transfer of C.C. No.1085 of 2007 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad to the Family Court at Hyderabad. The petitioner is the husband and the 2nd respondent in Tr.Crl.P. No.244 of 2008 is the wife and the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties and Sri H. Prahalad Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in both the petitions are heard. The husband desires the domestic violence case and the criminal case to be transferred to the Family Court at Hyderabad on the ground that O.P. No.80 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ongole was transferred to the Family Court at Hyderabad at the instance of the wife as per the orders in Transfer C.M.P. No.467 of 2007 by this Court. He further stated about FCOP No.616 of 2007 also being pending before the said Family Court, Hyderabad for maintenance, injunction concerning residence, etc. An interim injunction in I.A. No.605 of 2007 and an interim maintenance in I.A. No.1116 of 2008 were stated to have been granted. Interim maintenance was also stated to have been granted at Rs.2,500/- per month each in D.V.C. No.18 of 2008. The husband claims to have lost his employment due to the litigation and to avoid conflicting orders in different cases and duplication of grant of reliefs like maintenance, he desires to have all the cases transferred to the Family Court. Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court four precedents, though two of them do not extend any support to his contentions, in his usual fairness. In M.A. Mony v. M.P. Leelamma[1], it was held that there is no provision under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”) which permits transfer of a petition under Section 12 pending before the Court of a Magistrate to any other Court and the powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure do not evidently clothe superior Courts with power to transfer a proceeding pending before a criminal Court to any other civil Court. It was opined that if such a power of transfer is inferred or assumed, it would virtually deprive the aggrieved woman of the right to expeditious procedure for enforcement of her civil rights through the structures established under the Code of Criminal Procedure under the Act. It was also opined that the Family Court is not invested with any power to deal with an application under Section 12 of the Act and that there is nothing in the language, scheme or purport of the Act, which can even remotely suggest that a civil Court or Family Court is competent to deal with an application under Section 12 and grant reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 in an application under Section 12. Though the aggrieved woman can claim reliefs through the civil Court or Family Court under different jurisdictions, she cannot be deprived of her vested statutory right of procedure to claim enforcement of such reliefs through the criminal Court and it was concluded that the superior Courts cannot have any jurisdiction to transfer such petitions under Section 12 of the Act pending before the Magistrate to any civil Court or Family Court. This view was followed by the Madras High Court in C.V.S. Ravi v. Ratna Sailaja[2], wherein also it was concluded on a similar reasoning that such a request for transfer cannot be entertained. The decisions in Jayakumari @ Sabeeha Banu v. Balasubramanian[3] and Kadar Basha v. The Station House Officer[4], dealing with the right of appeal being taken away and other issues, are not directly on the point and in view of the reasoning adopted by High Courts of Kerala and Madras, to differ from which there is no strong reason or ground, the request for transfer of the domestic violence case and the criminal case to the Family Court cannot be entertained. In any view, the alleged possibility of duplication of reliefs or conflict in conclusions, is only an apprehension without any strong basis and cannot afford a strong ground for depriving the Courts of competent jurisdiction from trying or disposing of matters before them in accordance with law. Consequently, both the petitions have to fail and they are accordingly dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-07-2009 Svv [1] 2007 CRI.L.J. 2604 [2] CDJ 2008 MHC 4079 [3] CDJ 2008 MHC 850 [4] CDJ 2007 MHC 3780