AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—The petitioner is the wife of the 2nd respondent. Her father lodged a complaint before the Gandhi Nagar police station, Bellary for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 which was registered in Crime NO. 70/2012. A charge sheet has been filed and the matter is pending in C.C. No. 1159/2012 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bellary. Respondent No. 2, the husband also filed a complaint against the petitioner before the very same police station for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code which was registered in Crime No. 163/2012. A charge sheet has been filed which is pending in C.C. No. 1518/2012 before the very same Court.
The case of the petitioner is that her husband has filed a matrimonial case against her u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty, which is pending on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bellary in M.C. No. 106/2012. Her case is that it is very difficult for her to travel from Gulbarga to Bellary to attend the Court, since she is a young lady. Hence, she filed the present petition u/s 407 of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of C.C. Nos. 1518/2012 and 1518/2012 of Gandhi Nagar police station, Bellary to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Gulbarga.
It is contended that the petitioner is a resident of Gulbarga and it is very difficult for her to travel from Gulbarga to Bellary to attend the Court on the dates when the case is listed.
On the other hand, the learned Addl. SPP submits that there is no ground to allow the petition since the case has been filed in Bellary and the petitioner is resident of Bellary. The contention that the petitioner is a resident of Hubli is unacceptable. She has stated that she is a resident of Gulbarga only for the purpose of seeking the transfer of the case.
Sri. N. Krishnacharya, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 contends that the petitioner is studying the course in Pathology at Hubli. Therefore, the very contention that the petitioner is residing at Gulbarga is misconceived.
On hearing learned counsels, I'' am of the considered view that there is a serious doubt whether the petitioner is a resident of Bellary or Gulbarga and she is unable to attend the Court at Bellary. That, she seeks the transfer of the case because she is a lady.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Neelam Kanwar Vs. Devinder Singh Kanwar, to contend that the petition filed by the petitioner for transfer was allowed. Hence, the same order requires to be followed. On considering the same, I'' am of the considered view that there is no declaration of law. In view of the facts in that case, the order is passed by the Supreme Court. The facts herein are quite different. Reliance on the judgment is wholly misplaced. The petitioner is studying at Hubli. Her plea that she is a resident of Gulbarga may not be correct. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.