Allowed

Smt.Kuppili Satya Kala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Mar 2021TRCRLP/294/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a transfer criminal petition filed under Section 407 CrPC to withdraw ex-parte execution petitions for maintenance and transfer them to a Magistrate Court at Vizianagaram. This was due to the petitioner's relocation resulting from the husband's retirement, making travel to the original court in Kakinada excessively difficult.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.P.No.1502 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.3517 of 2017 withdrawn from Kakinada and transferred to the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vizianagaram.

Smt.Kuppili Satya Kala Vs The State of Andhra… — Maintenance and Alimony | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.294 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:-

¶3

This transfer criminal petition is filed under Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to withdraw Crl.M.P.No.1502 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.3517 of 2017, which arises out of order made in M.C.No.26 of 2015 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District and transfer the same to any Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court at Vizianagaram for implementation of the order by way of execution petition.

¶4

The facts of the petition, in brief are that the marriage of the 1^st petitioner was performed with the 2^nd respondent herein on 01.03.2018 and out of wedlock, the petitioners 2 and 3 were born to them. Later, the 2^nd respondent herein harassed the 1^st petitioner physically and mentally demanding additional dowry and neglected to maintain her. Hence, the petitioner filed M.C.No.26 of 2015 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada and the trial Court after conducting enquiry, allowed the maintenance case and directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- to the 1^st petitioner and Rs.4,000/- each to the petitioners 2 and 3.

¶5

It is stated that the petitioners along with her children is taking shelter at her parents’ house at Kakinada. However, subsequent to filing Crl.M.P.No.3517 of 2017, the father of the 1^st petitioner retired and shifted to Vizianagaram. Hence, in view of change of residence, it is difficult for the petitioner to travel from Vizianagaram to Kakinada, which is more than 200 KMs away. It

¶6

¶7

is stated that subsequent to granting of maintenance, the respondent did not pay any amount, due to which the petitioners are facing much hardship.

¶8

Heard Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1^st respondent-State. As per the office endorsement, learned counsel for the petitioner served notice on the counsel appearing on behalf of 2^nd respondent in the Court below, but none appears on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in spite of granting maintenance by the Court below, the 2^nd respondent herein failed to pay the same. Hence, the petitioners are constrained to file Crl.M.P.No.1502 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.3517 of 2017 for execution of order the Court below. But subsequently since the father of the 1^st petitioner retired from service, they have shifted to Vizianagaram from Kakinada, as such it is becoming difficult for the petitioners to travel all the way to Kakinada, which is 200 KMs away from Vizianagaram to prosecute their case. Hence, the urged the Court to allow the transfer criminal petition.

¶10

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners served notice on the counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent before the Court below, none appeared on his behalf.

¶11

Taking into consideration the plight of the petitioners to travel all the way from Vizianagaram to Kakinada to prosecute the case, this Court is of the view that interests of justice would be met

¶12

¶13

if the petitions are transferred from Kakinada to the competent Court in Vizianagaram.

¶14

Accordingly, the transfer criminal petition is allowed and the Crl.M.P.No.1502 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.3517 of 2017, which arises out of order made in M.C.No.26 of 2015 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District are withdrawn and same are transferred to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram for disposal in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

___________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

3^rd March, 2021

PVD

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶21

(ALLOWED)

¶22

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.294 of 2018

¶23

3^rd March, 2021

¶24

PVD

Smt.Kuppili Satya Kala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Kuppili Satya Kala v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Satti Satyanarayana Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mandapalli Kiran Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rekha Venkata Kanaka Bhimeswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Killo Bala Krishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Marisetti Venkateswarao, Vs The State of Andhra PRadesh

Cherukuri Venkaiah Vs The State SHO