Dismissed

Shrirang Sadashiv Waghmare v. Kiran Ganpat Kamble

Bombay HC15 Mar 2011APPLN/4712/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a criminal application seeking transfer of maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from Latur to Bombay. The court held that mere apprehension of danger without a filed complaint was insufficient and that transferring proceedings would cause undue inconvenience to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Application for transfer of proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shrirang Sadashiv Waghmare Vs Kiran Ganpat Kamble — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

Appln 4712-08.sxw

pps

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

Criminal Application No. 4712 of 2008

¶6

Shrirang Sadashiv Waghmare .. Applicant

¶7

v/s.

¶8

Smt. Kiran Ganpat Kamble ..Respondent

¶9

Shri Anilkumar Patil i/b. Sachin R. Pawar for the Applicant

¶10

CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 15^th March, 2011

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Respondent has filed Criminal Misc. Application No.3110 of 2008 in

¶13

or about June 2008 seeking maintenance from the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The said proceedings are pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur (hereinafter referred to as “the said Court”). The petitioner has filed petition to seek declaration that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is null and void. The said proceeding is filed in the Family Court at Bombay being M.J.Petition No.A-1130 of 2008.

¶14

The petitioner, by this transfer application wants that proceedings

¶15

2 Appln 4712-08.sxw

¶16

filed by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. should be transferred to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, at Borivli. It is admitted by the petitioner that Respondent is presently staying at Latur.

¶17

In support of the submission for transfer as prayed for, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner’s life is in danger at Latur. He has not placed before the Court any complaint filed to show that there is danger to the life of the petitioner at Latur. According to the petitioner, on one occasion the respondent and her advocate came to Bombay and threatened the petitioner and that there is a threat to his life. This ground is sought to be pleaded for transfer.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioner even suggested that the petitioner is prepared to pay the travelling expenses to the respondent so as to compensate her.

¶19

Looking to the nature of the proceeding pending in the Court at Latur, and one pending at Bombay certainly these proceedings cannot be tagged together. Merely because the petitioner apprehends that his

¶20

Appln 4712-08.sxw

¶21

¶22

life is in danger, specifically at Latur, the case cannot be transferred to Bombay because the petitioner has not been able to place before the Court any instance of threat to his life at Latur. Surely, if the petitioner apprehends any danger and an offence is said to have been committed by the respondent, it will be open for the petitioner to file complaint against the respondent.

¶23

In my view, no ground is made out for transfer of the proceedings filed by the wife under Section 125, who is without any financial support. Transfer of said proceedings to Bombay will cause inconvenience to Respondent. The solution provided by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he would pay money to the respondent for her journey to Bombay cannot be accepted as it is unjust.

¶24

For these reasons this application is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence the following order is passed.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

[R.Y.GANOO, J.]

Shrirang Sadashiv Waghmare v. Kiran Ganpat Kamble

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrirang Sadashiv Waghmare v. Kiran Ganpat Kamble

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

Abraham Titus Vs Suzette June Titus

Jitendra Shantilal Panchal Vs Reshma J. Panchal

Sachin Jaywant Bhawar Vs Priya Sachin Bhawar

Binish Balan Vs Smitha Binish

Mithun Kishore Patadia Vs Sheetal Mithun Patadia

Abdul Gafar Abdul Hamid Tamboli Vs Afreen Bano Abdul Gafar Tamboli and Ors.