Dismissed¶¶47

Velagala Chiranjeevi Reddy v. Satti Likhitha @ Valagala Likhitha

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Oct 2025TRCRLP/93/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer Criminal Petition 93/2025; Section 447 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; D.V.C.No.05 of 2025; Family Court Visakhapatnam; Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005; Section 27 Domestic Violence Act 2005 jurisdiction; XI Additional District Judge Tadepalligudem West Godavari; transfer of domestic violence case refused; dismissal at admission stage; matrimonial dispute; petitioner software engineer Hyderabad; APHC010507082025.

What did the court decide?

As per Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the learned XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, is not having jurisdiction to try the Domestic Violence Cases. ¶¶46

Velagala Chiranjeevi Reddy Vs Satti Likhitha @… — Domestic Violence | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether D.V.C.No.05 of 2025, pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam, should be withdrawn and transferred to the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, for trial and disposal. +1 more

¶¶26

Court's answer

It is not a fit case for seeking withdrawal of D.V.C.No.05 of 2025 from the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam and transfer to the XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem; the Transfer Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶¶47

Ratio / Principle

As per Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the learned XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, is not having jurisdiction to try the Domestic Violence Cases.

¶¶46

Key takeaways

The material on record reveals that none of the parties are currently residing at Tadepalligudem.ratio¶¶36
As a sequel to the dismissal, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, and the interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Criminal Petition No.93/2025 (APHC010507082025), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 06.10.2025 by Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao. Filed under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner sought withdrawal of D.V.C.No.05 of 2025 (a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) from the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam and its transfer to the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. Holding: the material on record revealed that none of the parties are currently residing at Tadepalligudem, and as per Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the learned XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem is not having jurisdiction to try Domestic Violence Cases; the Transfer Criminal Petition was dismissed at the stage of admission as devoid of merits, with miscellaneous petitions, if any, and the interim order, if any, standing closed.

¶1

[3397]

¶2

APHC010507082025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶7

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 93/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

VELAGALA CHIRANJEEVI REDDY, S/O PULLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS FLAT 202, 2ND FLOOR, RAGHAVENDRA RESIDENCY, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, HAFEEZPET, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD-500084

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

SATTI LIKHITHA VALAGALA LIKHITHA, W/0 CHIRANJEEVI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, FLAT NO. VE-08, VENKATADRI HILLS, OLD GOPALAPATNAM,VISAKHAPATNAM CITY.

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

pleased to withdraw D.V.C. No.5 of 2025 pending on the file of the Court of the Honorable Court of the Judge Family Court at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Court of the Honorable XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District for trail and dispose off and to pass

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

¶18

pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including presence of the petitioner in D.V.C. No.5 of 2025 pending on the file of the Court of the Honorable Court of the Judge Family Court at Visakhapatnam, pending disposal of the above Tr.Crl. Petition in this Hon’ble Court and pass

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.VM CHIRANJEEVI KOLLA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶23

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The petitioner herein filed the present petition under Section 447 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short ‘the B.N.S.S’) seeking for withdrawal of D.V.C.No.05 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tedepalligudem, West Godavari District, for trial and disposal of the same.

¶27

The case of the petitioner as per the affidavit in brief is as follows:

¶28

I. The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 01.06.2022, in Gorella Suranna Kalyana Vedika, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, as per the Hindu Rites and Caste Customs. After that, due to the matrimonial disputes between both the spouses, the petitioner has been residing separately at Hyderabad.

¶29

II. The petitioner pleaded that the respondent No.1 has instituted a Domestic Violence Case against the petitioner, vide D.V.C.No.05 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the same is pending for adjudication. The petitioner is employed as a Software Engineer in a company situated at Hyderabad, and there is a

¶30

likelihood of his losing employment if he is required to frequently seek leave to attend the Court proceedings at Visakhapatnam.

¶31

III. The petitioner has further pleaded that, as there exists threat to the life and liberty and as there is continuous intimidation by respondent No.1 & her family members, while attending the case proceedings before the Court at Visakhapatnam, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition seeking transfer of the Domestic Violence Case instituted by respondent No.1 to Tadepalligudem, for convenience and fair adjudication. It is further pleaded that as respondent No.1 owns properties and house at Tadepalligudem, it would not cause any prejudice to her, if the case in D.V.C.No.05 of 2025 is transferred from Visakhapatnam

¶32

to Tadepalligudem.

¶33

Today when the matter is taken up for admission, learned counsel for the petitioner is present through virtual mode.

¶34

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶35

As seen from the material available on record, the respondent No.1 has instituted a Domestic Violence Case against the petitioner herein vide D.V.C.No.05 of 2025, on the file of the Judge, Family

¶36

Court, Visakhapatnam and on the ground of threat to his life, the petitioner herein has sought transfer of the said D.V.C., case proceedings from Visakhapatnam to Tadepalligudem. The material on record reveals that none of the parties are currently residing at Tadepalligudem.

¶37

Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is extracted here under:-

¶38

“Jurisdiction.-(1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which-

¶39

(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or

¶40

(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or

¶41

(c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.

¶42

(2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India”.

¶43

It was also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned

¶44

counsel for the petitioner that the personal appearance of the family members of the petitioner was dispensed with by the learned Single Judge of this Court in some other proceedings.

¶45

It is also relevant to say that none of the parties are residing at Tadepalligudem and the petitioner herein is residing at Hyderabad and working as a software engineer, likewise respondent No.1 is

¶46

also residing separately in Visakhapatnam. The petitioner herein is seeking transfer of Domestic Violence Case from Visakhapatnam to XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem. As per Section 27 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, learned XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, is not having jurisdiction to try the Domestic Violence Cases.

¶47

In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit and subsistence in the contentions taken by the petitioner and I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case for seeking withdrawal of D.V.C.No.05 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court at Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to the Court of XI Additional District Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, for trial and disposal and as such, the present Transfer Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶48

With the above observations, the Transfer Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed.

¶49

_______________________________ JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

¶50

Date: 06.10.2025 CVD

Velagala Chiranjeevi Reddy v. Satti Likhitha @ Valagala Likhitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velagala Chiranjeevi Reddy v. Satti Likhitha @ Valagala Likhitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meeniga Santhi Kumari @ Boda Santhi Kumari Vs Boda Hemanth Kumar

V. Bhaskar Reddy, Kurnool Dist. Vs Kondapuram Rami Reddy, Kurnool Dist.

Bhimavarapu Subba Reddy Vs B. Thirupathamma(died per lrs r-3)

Egitela @ Pagadala Sandhya Vs Egitela Nrendra

Thota Lakshmi, Vs Thota Narayana Murthy @ Vishnu Murthy

Abburi Sowjanya @ Nalluru Sowjanya Vs Nalluru Venkata Murali Ratnakar