Allowed

Smt. Mateen Ansari, And Another v. Sri. Zainuddin Khan, And Another

Telangana HC6 Apr 2022TRCRLP/18/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This transfer criminal petition under Section 407(6) CrPC seeks transfer of a maintenance case to the Family Court where a pending custody petition for the same parties and child is being tried. The court allowed the transfer to enable joint hearing and evidence.

What did the court decide?

M.C. No. 17 of 2020 is transferred from Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Nampally to the Family Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

Smt. Mateen Ansari, And Another Vs Sri. Zainuddin… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 18 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. Mateen Ansari, D/o. Late Mohammed Taj Uddin Ansari, Aged 31, Occ. Housework, R/o. 6-3-1243125, M.S Maqtha, Opp Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad.

¶9

Minor Khaja Hamahuddin Khan, D/o. Sri. Zainuddin Khan, Aged 18 months, (the Petitioner No.2 is minor and the Petitioner No. 1 is the Gardian)

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

Sri. Zainuddin Khan,S/o. Late Khaja Moin Uddin Khan, Aged about 32, Occ. Business, Rlo. 13-4-143/A, Tappa Chautra, Karwan, Hyderabad

¶13

2 The State of Telangana, Represented by. Public Prosecutor, High Court, at Hyderabad.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

Petition under Section 407(6) of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^High Court^{may be} pleased to transfer M.C. No. 17 of 2020, the Court of Additional [Vletropolitan Sessions Judge for the trail of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb^{Blast Court-cum-} Additional Family Court-cum-XXlll Additional Chief Judge, at Nampally, Hyderabad- Transfer to the Hon'ble Family Judge, City Civil Court,^at Hyderabad.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^Sri SYED JAMEEL AHMED, Advocate for the Petitioners and the^Public

¶17

¶18

c Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of the Respondent No.2 not appearing in person or by Advocate.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SYED JAMEEL AHMED

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

,,, c

¶24

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

TRANSFER CRIMINAL ON No.18 of2O2l

¶26

ORDER:-

¶27

This transfer criminal petition is hled under Section ., 4O7 Cr.P.C seeking transfer of M.C.No.17 of 2O2O from the file of Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cum-Additional Family-cum-XXIII Additiona,l Chief Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad to the Hon'b1e Judge, Family Court, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

¶28

Petitioner No. 1 is wife and respondent No. 1 is husband and petitioner No.2 is their l8-months-old daughter. it is stated that due to the disputes, they fel1 apart and the petitioners hled M.C.No. 17 ol 2079 in the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cumAdditional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad, while Respondent No. 1 filed F,C.O.P. No. 516 of 2019 in the Family Court, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad seeking custody of the minor child under the Guardianship Act and both the cases are pending.

¶29

Sri Syed Jameel Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the maintenance case was initiaily filed before the Family Judge, Cify Civil Courts, Hyderabad which

¶30

¶31

was subsequently, transferred to the Court ol the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBC-cumAdditional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge at Nampally and is at the stage of issuing summons to the respondents. It is stated that in the FCOP, issues have not been framed so far. Learned counsel submits that since the parties are one and the same in both the matters, which arise out of the matrimonial disputes, it would be convenient for both the parties to lead evidence and get the documents marked before the Court. It is stated that this Court has got power to transfer the case from one Court to the other taking into consideration the convenience of the parties.

¶32

Though the petitioners have taken out notice to Respondent No.1 and filed proof of service, none appears on his behalf.

¶33

Admittedly, FCOP is pending before the Judge, Famiiy Court, City Civii Courts, Hyderabad for the custody of the child and M.C.No. 17 of 2O2O is pending before the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trial of JHCBBCcum-Additional Family -cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge at Nampally, Hyderabad and it would be convenient for both the parties if both the matters are tried and heard by the same

Court. It is well-settled that while transferring^{the cases from} one Court to the other, the Court has^{to balancethe interestsof} both the parties. In this case, the^{partiesare one and same and} if the reiief as sought by the^petitioner is^{granted,no prejudice} would be caused to Respondent^{No. 1.}

¶40

Therefore, this Transfer Criminal^{Petition is allowed.} M.C.No. 17 of 2O2O is withdrawn from the^{Court of the} Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge^{for the trialof JHCBBC-} cum-Additional Family-cum-XXlll Additional^{Chief Judge at} Nampally, Hyderabad and translerred^{to the Family Judge, City} Civil Courts at Hyderabad.^{Thereshall be no orderas to costs.} 7 . As a sequel, pending misceilaneous^{petitions,if any,} shall stand closed.

¶41

'ou"33BYt$iREt'EFRRX //TRUE COPY// sEcffiN OFFTCER

¶42

to'',. an" Additional^{Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the trail of JubileeHill-sCar} Bomb^{Blast corn-"ux.,tiiiti"Ji"rirv6ourt-cum-XXl ll Additionalchief} JrOs", ,t^{NamPallY'Hvderabad'}

¶43

Tthe^{Hon'blef urnlrv L']Jg"' bity CivilCourt'at Hvderabad'}

¶44

3 Two^{ccs to the P,bl"i":;;;;;10i' r-rish do"t foi the state of relangana'at} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶45

Hvderabad [OUT]

¶46

4 ljl:, ff;^{i-nisvroJAMEEL AHMED' Advocate[oPucl} 5 Two CD^CoPies 6 One SPare^CoPY IMMK

x\x

HIGH COURT

DATED:610412022

g STAre
a,
e P
o
i zs iuu 2r'22
\ * *t!.
.De.sparc

¶52

ORDER

¶53

TRCRLP.No.18 of 2021

¶54

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION !S ALLOWED

¶55

t<br>

Smt. Mateen Ansari, And Another v. Sri. Zainuddin Khan, And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mateen Ansari, And Another v. Sri. Zainuddin Khan, And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Ramachander Vs The State of Telangana

Putta Gouramma Vs The State of Telangana

Abbasani Shiva Kumar , Suresh Vs The State of Telangana

Keval Chand Bhuriwale and another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Sri Balvinder Singh Vs Directorate of enforcement

M/s. Scientia Infocom India Private Limited Vs Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority