Dismissed

K M Shivaprasad v. Smt. Mauna M H

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2021CRL.P/7398/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition sought transfer of a Domestic Violence Act case from Dharwad to Bengaluru under Section 407 Cr.P.C., citing travel hardship. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the wife resided at Dharwad and faced greater inconvenience by transferring the trial there, noting the case was near completion.

What did the court decide?

Petition for transfer to Family Court, Bengaluru dismissed with no order as to costs.

K M Shivaprasad Vs Smt. Mauna M H — Karnataka HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶2

B E F O R E

¶3

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7398 OF 2017

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

K.M. Shivaprasad S/o K.G. Maheshmurthy Aged about 32 years R/o Disciples India Group No.3444, 1^st Floor, Chord Road Attiguppe Metro Station, 2^nd Stage, Vijayangar, Bengaluru - 560 040.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(By Sri Bimbadhar M. Goudar, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Smt. Mauna M.H. W/o K.M. Shivaprasad Aged about 28 years R/o 1^st Main, 12^th Cross, Ranichannamma Nagar, Saptapur Dharwad District - 580 001.

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(By Sri S. Rajashekar, Advocate)

¶13

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C, praying to pass an order to withdraw and transfer Crl. Misc. No.50/2016 from the Court of Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Dharwad to

¶14

CRL.P. NO.7398/2017

¶15

¶16

the Prl. Family Court at Bengaluru, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶17

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission along with I.A.1/2017 through Video Conferencing / Physical Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present petitioner who is stated to be the husband of the present respondent has filed this petition under Section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') seeking transfer of Crl. Misc. 50/2016 from the Court of learned Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Dharwad to the Court of learned Prl. Family Judge at Bengaluru.

¶20

Respondent is being represented by her learned counsel.

¶21

Though this matter is listed for admission, however, with consent from both side, it is taken up for its final disposal.

¶22

It is the contention of the petitioner as well the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present respondent who is the wife of the present petitioner has filed a Crl. Misc. No. 50/2016, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC

¶23

CRL.P. NO.7398/2017 3

¶24

at Dharwad which is filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for the relief under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the said Act.

¶25

The grounds agitated by the petitioner in the present petition as well in the arguments canvassed by his learned counsel is that the said Court at Dharwad has got no jurisdiction to hear the complaint in question. The other ground which the petitioner herein has made is that, traveling repeatedly to Dharwad which is at a distance of about 450 kms., causes lot of inconvenience t him.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the fact that at the earlier instance, at the instance of the present respondent (wife), this Court has allowed Crl.P.101443/2017 filed under Section 407 CPC by its Order dated 04.09.2017 whereby it has transferred a criminal case in Criminal Case No.403/2017 from the Court of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar to the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Dharwad where the present Crl. Misc.50/2016 is pending.

¶27

CRL.P. NO.7398/2017 4

¶28

However, the learned counsel for the present petitioner in his reply arguments submits that said Crl.P. No.101443/2017 is between the present respondent and father of present petitioner as such, the present petitioner is not at all a party in the said case.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that admittedly the present respondent (wife) is residing at Dharwad and cause of action has arisen for her to institute the case at Dharwad and that no hardship would be caused to the present petitioner if he is made to attend the case at Dharwad which is in its fag end of disposal, on the other hand, if the case is transferred to Bengaluru, irreparable hardship and inconvenience would be caused to the respondent.

¶30

The contention of the present petitioner that the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Dharwad has no jurisdiction to hear the present complaint in question which is made in Crl. Misc.50/2016 can be agitated before the said Court and this Court under Section 407 Cr.P.C. need not consider the said aspect.

¶31

CRL.P. NO.7398/2017

¶32

¶33

The remaining only contention of the petitioner is that he is made to travel to Dharwad on every date of hearing, as such, it causes great inconvenience to him.

¶34

Admittedly, apart from the present case in Crl.Misc.50/2016, one more criminal case is said to be pending between the present respondent and father of the present petitioner in C.C. NO.403/2017 in the very same Court i.e. the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Dharwad, which means the present respondent is also appearing in a criminal case as a party in the said case at Dharwad where the father of the present petitioner is said to be the complainant. That means the family of the present petitioner is presently prosecuting the present respondent at Dharwad.

¶35

The present respondent wife is stated to be residing at Dharwad and she is also presently prosecuting another criminal case at Dharwad said to have been instituted by the family member of the present petitioner. That being the case, compelling her to attend her case in Crl. Misc. No.50/2016 at Bengaluru after transferring the said case to Bengaluru would definitely put her to a greater inconvenience and hardship when compared to that of the

¶36

CRL.P. NO.7398/2017

¶37

¶38

present petitioner who alleges that he is required to visit Dharwad on the dates of hearing.

¶39

Lastly, even according to both the parties, the said case Crl. Misc. 50/2016 with respect to which a transfer is sought, is stated to be earmarked for cross examination of P.W.1, there is every hope of the early disposal of the said case since the trial has already begun in the said case.

¶40

In the said circumstances, I do not find any reason to transfer the said Crl. Misc. No.50/2016 from Dharwad to Bengaluru. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. However, the early disposal of the said Crl. Misc. No.50/2016 by the Prl. Civil Jude and JMFC at Dharwad would be appreciated.

¶41

In view of the disposal of the petition, the pending I.A.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

sac*

K M Shivaprasad v. Smt. Mauna M H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K M Shivaprasad v. Smt. Mauna M H

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

Smt. v Rathnamma Vs Smt. Dodda Akkayamma

The State of Karnataka by Vs H.K.Mariswamy

N R Girish Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Jayamma Vs Sri Krishnappa

Smt.Sujatha Shetty Vs Sri.C.Raviraj Shetty

Smt. Girijamma Vs Smt. Neelamma