APHC010119362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: 1. KUNISETTI ANJI, S/O KUNISETTI GOPALA KRISHNA REDDY AGED 20 YEARS .HINDU, OCC STUDENT R/O DOOR NO. 4 SIVALAYAM VEEDI, NAGULAPALLI U. KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 533447 1. KADULURI NAGA NANDINI, D/o Gandhala Reddy, W/o Kunisetti Anji Aged 23 years, Hindu, Occ House wife, R/o Beside Society, Nagulapalli, U.Kothapalli Mandal East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh-533447 Petition under Article 227 of the Con circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by returning the original petition (un in S.R. No. 785/25 on repeated returns with identical objections unnumbered original petition pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TURAGA MK PRANEETHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 636/2025 KUNISETTI ANJI, S/O KUNISETTI GOPALA KRISHNA REDDY AGED 20 YEARS .HINDU, OCC STUDENT R/O DOOR NO. 4 SIVALAYAM VEEDI, NAGULAPALLI U. KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, 533447 ...PETITIONER AND KADULURI NAGA NANDINI, D/o Gandhala Reddy, W/o Kunisetti Anji Aged 23 years, Hindu, Occ House wife, R/o Beside Society, Nagulapalli, U.Kothapalli Mandal East Godavari District, Andhra ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to aggrieved by returning the original petition (un-number) O.P. 2025 in S.R. No. 785/25 on repeated returns with identical objections unnumbered original petition pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Counsel for the Petitioner: TURAGA MK PRANEETHA Counsel for the Respondent: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI KUNISETTI ANJI, S/O KUNISETTI GOPALA KRISHNA REDDY AGED 20 YEARS .HINDU, OCC STUDENT R/O DOOR NO. 4-164, SIVALAYAM VEEDI, NAGULAPALLI U. KOTHAPALLI MANDAL, EAST ...PETITIONER KADULURI NAGA NANDINI, D/o Gandhala Reddy, W/o Kunisetti Anji Aged 23 years, Hindu, Occ House wife, R/o Beside Society, Nagulapalli, U.Kothapalli Mandal East Godavari District, Andhra ...RESPONDENT stitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be number) O.P. 2025 in S.R. No. 785/25 on repeated returns with identical objections in an unnumbered original petition pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2 The Court made the following order: Assailing the correctness and legality of the order dated 22.02.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram in S.R.No.785 of 2025 in unnumbered FCOP of 2025, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner herein filed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram. However, the same was returned vide SR No.785 of 2025 dated 22.02.2025 on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition with a direction to file the same before the proper Court within one month from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri Sayed Sardar Saheb Akil, learned counsel, representing Ms Turaga MK Praneetha, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that the trial Court initially returned SR No.5175 of 2024 raising objections regarding maintainability and jurisdiction. The petition was first returned on 03.01.2025, prompting the petitioner to resubmit it with an explanation on 10.01.2025. Despite the petitioner’s detailed explanation, the case was again returned on 10.01.2025, subsequently resubmitted on 20.01.2025 and once again returned on 21.01.2025 on the same ground of lack of jurisdiction. He further submitted 3 that aggrieved by such repeated returns, the petitioner preferred CRP No.227 of 2025 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 10.02.2025, disposed of the same, leaving it open to the petitioner to resubmit the returned SR and file an appropriate memo before the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram for consideration, hearing and appropriate orders. He further submitted that in compliance with the said order, the petitioner resubmitted the petition along with a memo and supporting citations before the trial Court. However, the learned Civil Judge once again returned the petition on 22.02.2025, holding that the District Court alone has jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and directed the petitioner to file the petition before the proper Court (Family Court) within one month. Aggrieved by such repeated returns and the order dated 22.02.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition. He further contended that Section 3(1) of the Act specifically permits a contracting party, who was a child at the time of marriage, to file a petition for nullity before the ‘District Court’, which, as per established legal interpretations, includes the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division). The rejection order reflects a mechanical application of law, disregarding the petitioner’s right to seek declaration of nullity of marriage and thereby preventing irreparable harm. Hence, prayed to allow the petition by setting aside the order dated 22.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pithapuram in S.R.No.785 of 2025. 4 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The main contention of the petitioner is that the expression ‘District Court’ in Section 3(1) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, should be interpreted to include the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), and therefore, the trial Court erred in returning the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 7. Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, provides that a petition for annulment of a child marriage may be filed before the ‘District Court.’ The term ‘District Court’, unless specifically defined otherwise, ordinarily refers to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within a district. However, in matrimonial matters, particularly in view of the scheme of the enactment and the nature of the relief sought, such jurisdiction is to be exercised by the Court competent to deal with family and matrimonial disputes. 8. In this regard, it is relevant to note that Family Courts have been constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984, to exclusively deal with matters relating to marriage and family affairs. The relief of declaration of nullity of marriage squarely falls within the domain of matrimonial jurisdiction, which is specifically entrusted to the Family Court, where such Court is established. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithapuram, that the petition is not maintainable before it and that the proper 5 forum would be the competent District Court/Family Court, cannot be said to be erroneous or illegal. The order impugned does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is also to be noted here that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and is to be exercised sparingly to keep the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the trial Court has acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with law, this Court would not be justified in interfering with such an order. In the present case, the trial Court has merely returned the petition with a direction to present the same before the proper forum. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner, as liberty has been granted to him to approach the appropriate Court. 10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in the Civil Revision Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from filing the petition before the Family Court/District Court as directed by the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 10.03.2026 MP 6 288 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.636 of 2025 Dated 10.03.2026 MP