The judge also distinguished the precedents cited by the appellant, noting that they involved contractual disputes with express jurisdiction clauses, unlike the present matrimonial dispute.
Hyderabad: Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court upheld a family court’s order granting an anti-suit injunction in favour of an Indian woman, restraining her estranged husband from pursuing divorce proceedings in a US court. The judge dismissed a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the husband, challenging the injunction order passed by the II Additional Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which restrained him from initiating or continuing legal proceedings, including divorce or related matrimonial cases, in any court outside India, particularly in the US. The plaintiff-wife filed the civil suit seeking a temporary anti-suit injunction to prevent her husband from pursuing a divorce case pending before the Circuit Court for the County of Wayne, Michigan, and from initiating any further matrimonial litigation in any other country. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the judge observed that an Indian court is well within its powers to grant an anti-suit injunction when circumstances so warrant, even if one of the parties already initiated proceedings abroad. The appellant argued that both parties resided in the US and most of the matrimonial assets were situated there, making the Michigan court the ‘forum conveniens’. He contended that the wife, by filing a reply and seeking leave to appeal in the US proceedings, submitted to the jurisdiction of that court. Rejecting these arguments, the judge noted that both parties were Indian citizens married in India and temporarily residing in the US on work visas. Participation in foreign proceedings did not bar the wife from seeking legal remedies in India, where personal jurisdiction exists. The judge also distinguished the precedents cited by the appellant, noting that they involved contractual disputes with express jurisdiction clauses, unlike the present matrimonial dispute.
Child custody in writ plea junked
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a father seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of his two minor children. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was dealing with a writ petition filed by the father, who alleged that his estranged wife had taken the children from his custody under the pretext of returning them in two weeks but failed to do so. The panel noted that the petitioner and his wife were engaged in a pending guardianship petition before the Family Court at LB Nagar, filed in 2023, where the petitioner was the respondent. The panel observed that the respondent-mother sought a declaration of guardianship and custody of the children through due legal process. The petitioner placed reliance on a memorandum of agreement recorded before the Mediation Centre/Lok Adalat to contend that the children were being illegally detained by their mother. The panel found no justification for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 in light of the ongoing proceedings before the family court. The panel observed that the petitioner did not plead any denial of opportunity to contest the guardianship case nor furnish reasons for bypassing the remedy available in the pending family court matter. Finding no merit in the writ petition, the panel dismissed the writ petition.
HC quashes FIR in hospital row
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal prosecution against 10 accused individuals, including a doctor managing a private hospital in Warangal, on the ground that the complaint was largely civil in nature. The FIR invoked multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alleging serious criminal conduct amidst a longstanding family dispute. The judge dealt with a criminal petition filed by Toutireddy Narsinga Reddy and nine others seeking to quash the criminal case filed by the complainant, the younger brother of accused No. 1 and a co-partner in the family-run Jaya Hospital. According to the complaint, the accused allegedly misappropriated funds, denied access to hospital records and committed theft of important documents and cash. It was alleged that the complainant was wrongfully restrained and threatened by the accused, who also insulted him in connection with a dispute over ancestral properties. The FIR included various IPC sections such as wrongful restraint, cheating, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, theft and criminal intimidation. The judge found the dispute to be predominantly civil in nature. A partnership deed governed the management of Jaya Hospital and included an arbitration clause for the resolution of internal disputes. The complainant filed a civil suit seeking partition and separate possession of family property, which remained pending. The judge observed no specific allegations against the accused to substantiate the offences under the cited IPC sections. The judge further observed that there was no evidence of actual restraint, cheating or theft. Similarly, no details supported claims of obscene behaviour or criminal intimidation. Citing a Supreme Court ruling the judge reiterated that criminal proceedings must not be used to settle civil scores. The judge held that the FIR did not disclose any cognisable offence and that continuing the case would amount to an abuse of the legal process and accordingly allowed the criminal petition.
HC tells TSPSC to consider plea
Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao of the Telangana High Court disposed of a writ plea filed by a student who sought inclusion in the Form-1 verification list for the Group-II recruitment process conducted by the Telangana Public Service Commission (TGPSC), after having mistakenly uploaded the incorrect form during her online application. The judge was hearing a writ petition filed by Vemula Rishitha, 24, from Hanamkonda, who had applied under Notification No. 28/22 dated December 29, 2022. The petitioner contended that while applying for the Group-II services, she inadvertently uploaded Form-2 instead of Form-1. Upon realising the error, she attempted to rectify it through the TSPSC portal but found that there was no option to edit or resubmit the application. The petitioner submitted a representation on May 26, 2025, both in person and by email, requesting the authorities to consider her case and correct the mistake. When the TSPSC released the list of candidates for certificate verification on June 11, 2025, her hall ticket number was not included in the Form-1 list, prompting her to approach the High Court. After hearing both sides, the judge directed the TSPSC to consider the petitioner’s representation dated May 26 and take an appropriate decision as per the law within four weeks.
HC admits plea on Nirmal poll delay
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea filed by Samundar Pelly Rajendar, a former ward member of the Nirmal municipality, challenging the inaction of the state government and the State Election Commission (SEC) in conducting elections to the civic body whose term expired on March 25. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the authorities, particularly the SEC, had failed to initiate the election process as mandated under the Constitution and the Telangana Municipalities Act. Senior Counsel Prabhakar Rao, appearing for the petitioner, argued that as per Article 243U, the duration of a municipality was five years from the date of its first meeting and fresh elections must be completed before the expiry of the term. He argued that the constitutional obligation to conduct timely elections could not be diluted on administrative grounds and that any revision of electoral rolls should not delay the election process. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in "Kishan Singh Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad (2006)," it was contended that neither the state government nor the Election Commission was permitted to defer elections on unreasonable grounds and must act to fulfil the constitutional mandate. It was also the contention of the petitioner that he had served his full five-year term from January 27, 2020, and was seeking re-election with continued public support. The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to conduct the Nirmal municipality elections without delay. The judge directed the respondent authorities to obtain instructions and posted the matter for further hearing.
