Dismissed

Smt. Renuka W/O Gangappa Naikar v. Sri. Gangappa Bhimmappa Naikar

Karnataka HC28 Sept 2022CRL.P/100965/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of a maintenance matter from Bailhongal to Koppal. The judge found no bonafides in the petition as pleadings indicated the petitioner resides in the respondent's house on the outskirts of Bailhongal, making the transfer claim abusive.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition filed under section 407 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

Smt. Renuka W/O Gangappa Naikar Vs Sri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100965 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT. RENUKA W/O GANGAPPA NAIKAR AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PRABHU NAGAR, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. HANUMANTHAPPA BANDI, R/O. DADEGAL, TQ AND DIST KOPPAL -583235

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. D.V.PATTAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

SRI. GANGAPPA BHIMMAPPA NAIKAR AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. PROFESSOR, R/O. COURT BACKSIDE, PRABHU NAGAR, BAILHONGAL, TQ BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI -583101 NOW WORKING AT PRINCIPAL AT CRS COMPOSIT PU COLLEGE, ITAGI, TQ. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI -591112

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 407 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO TRANSFER THE CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO.86/2021, FILED BY THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BAILHONGAL TO FAMILY COURT, AT KOPPAL.

¶17

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner has filed this petition under section 407 of Cr.P.C., to transfer Crl.Misc.No.86/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bailhongal to the Family Court at Koppal.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage with respondent was solemnized on 22.05.1994 as per the customs and traditions prevailing

¶21

in their community at Sogal Someshwar Temple of Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi District. Through the wedlock, they are having two sons who are aged about 27 and 24

¶22

years, respectively. After few years of marriage,

¶23

¶24

respondent started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally. His family members used to instigate respondent No.1 to harass the petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in the house at Bailhongal, from 10.02.2021, respondent has started residing with another woman and forced the petitioner to return to her parental home. However, petitioner desired to stay in Bailhongal for the sake of her children.

¶25

2.1. It is further case of the petitioner that as she

¶26

is unable to maintain herself, she filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance and order is passed granting interim maintenance. Respondent has also filed M.C.No.44/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge for divorce. Now the petitioner seeks transfer of Crl.Misc.No.86/2021 from Bailhongal to Koppal.

¶27

Respondent has appeared through counsel.

¶28

During the course of arguments, learned

¶29

counsel for petitioner submitted that the distance

¶30

¶31

between Koppal and Bailhongal is about 180 km, the petitioner is not able to travel from Koppal to Bailhongal. Since her parents are aged, every time she need to accompany by somebody to attend the court at Bailhongal. For this reason, she is seeking transfer of the maintenance petition filed by her to Koppal.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent submitted that in fact, petitioner is also residing at Bailhongal. Only to harass the respondent, she is seeking transfer of her petition. Civil Petition No.100005/2022 filed by the petitioner seeking transfer of M.C.No.44/2021 from Bailhongal to Koppal is dismissed by this Court. Only to harass the respondent, she is seeking transfer and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶33

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

¶34

¶35

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel

¶36

for the respondent it is evident from the cause title in Crl.Misc.No.86/2021 and M.C.No.44/2021 that both petitioner and respondent are shown as residents of Bailhongal. Petitioner is aged 46 years and she is having two sons aged 27 and 24 years, respectively. From the petition averments, it is evident that she and her sons are residing in the house belonging to respondent and she has alleged that respondent has left the matrimonial home and living with another woman. On the other hand he sought divorce from the petitioner alleging that she is having illicit relationship with another person.

¶37

Though the petitioner has stated that she is

¶38

residing at Koppal, there are no material to prove the said fact. In the light of the pleadings that petitioner and her sons are living in the house of respondent at Bailhongal, the contentions of the petitioner that she is residing at Koppal and for that reason, she seeks transfer of petition cannot be accepted. In fact, her

¶39

¶40

petition seeking transfer of M.C.No.44/2021 to Koppal is also rejected. Thus, from the above discussions, I hold that there are no bonafides in the petition filed by the petitioner and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The criminal petition filed by the petitioner under section 407 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶43

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any,

¶44

do not survive for consideration and are

¶45

disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

YAN

Smt. Renuka W/O Gangappa Naikar v. Sri. Gangappa Bhimmappa Naikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Renuka W/O Gangappa Naikar v. Sri. Gangappa Bhimmappa Naikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Auto Shankar S/O. Laxmappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Auto Shankar Alias Shankar Lingappa S/O Lachamappa Alias Laxmappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Auto Shankar S/O Lakshmappa Alias Lachamappa Vs the State of Karnataka

K Ravindra S/O Kakarla Ramayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Subhas S/O Ashok Ghodake Vs the State of Karnataka

A.R.Patil Vs State of Karnataka