Allowed

Ponam v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2022TACR/1/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer Application allowed directing transfer of a criminal revision regarding matrimonial offences from Baghpat to Hapur. Court considered applicant's dependency and difficulty accessing Baghpat court due to location, while noting non-opposition by the State.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Criminal Revision No. 76 of 2016 from Sessions Judge, Baghpat to Sessions Judge, Hapur; Direction to transmit record within two weeks.

Ponam Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 1 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Ponam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mandvi Tripathi,Santosh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶5

Case called out in the revised list.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

None appears on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 to 6.

¶8

This Transfer Application has been filed with a prayer to transfer the Criminal Revision No. 76 of 2016, Smt. Poonam Vs. Sumit Tomar under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 326B, 511, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat to learned Sessions Judge, Hapur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has no livelihood. She is fully dependent upon her father. It is very difficult for her to attend the Court from District, Baghpat to District Hapur. She is not getting any maintenance from O.P. No. 2, so she is unable to do pairvi in the aforesaid revision. Further submission is that police did not register her case. She got the case registered by means of Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Police after collusion with O.P. Nos. 2 to 6 filed a Final Report. After getting her forged signature, Final Report was accepted. Further stated that she cannot get justice at District Court, Baghpat.

¶10

Per-contra, learned A.G.A. did not oppose the Transfer Application.

¶11

Perusal of the record reveals that applicant is wife of O.P. No. 2. The convenience of wife is a relevant consideration in cases relating to matrimonial dispute.

¶12

Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to transfer the Criminal Revision No. 76 of 2016, Smt. Poonam Vs. Sumit Tomar under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 326B, 511, 313 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act from the Court of Sessions Judge, Baghpat to Sessions Judge,

¶13

Hapur.

¶14

In view of the above, this Transfer Application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

¶15

District Judge, Baghpat is directed to transmit record of aforesaid case to District Court, Hapur within two weeks from the date of production of copy of this order before him. It is further directed to District Judge, Hapur to assign the aforesaid case to competent court having jurisdiction.

¶16

Office to communicate this order to District Judge Baghpat as well as District Judge Hapur through FAX and Email for necessary information and compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.3.2022 A. Mandhani

¶18

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK MANDHANI Date: 2022.03.09 10:25:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ponam v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponam v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

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

Virendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bablu @ Jagdamba Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Saroj Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Devanti Verma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Usman Alias Sameer and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others