Partly allowed

Smt. Renuka v. Sri Ramadas

Karnataka HC24 Aug 2022CRL.P/1612/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C. transferring a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act from MMTC Bengaluru to the Family Court at Mandya, citing the parties' relocation and the respondent's pending suit in Mandya.

What did the court decide?

Crl.Misc. No. 93/2016 withdrawn from MMTC-III, Bengaluru and transferred to Family Court, Mandya; records transmitted; parties to appear on 12.9.2022.

Smt. Renuka Vs Sri Ramadas — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1612 OF 2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

Smt. Renuka W/o Ramadas Aged about 59 years R/at No.KV-128, 7^th Cross Near Water Tank Kuvempunagara Mandya-571401. (By Srikanth N.V., Advocate)

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

AND:

¶9

Sri Ramadas S/o Late Dasappa Aged about 65 years C/o Suddere Patel R/a No.266, 3^rd Cross Gandhinagara Mandya City Mandya-571401. …Respondent (By Sri Vijay Kumar T., Advocate)

¶10

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. praying to transfer the C.Misc. No.93/2016 filed by the petitioner pending before the MMTC III, Bengaluru to proper Court at Mandya.

¶11

:: 2 ::

¶12

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Heard Sri. Srikanth N.V., learned counsel for

¶15

the petitioner and Sri. Vijay Kumar T., learned counsel for the respondent.

¶16

This petition is filed under section 407 of

¶17

Cr.P.C. for transferring Crl.Misc.93/2016 on the file of MMTC, Traffic Court-III, Bengaluru to the Family Court at Mandya. Crl.Misc.93/2016 is a petition instituted by the petitioner under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (‘Act’ for short). It is stated that at the time the petitioner initiated action under section 12 the Act, she was residing in Bengaluru and that the respondent was also residing in Bengaluru. Now both of them have relocated to Mandya and therefore the petitioner wants the case to be transferred to Family Court, Mandya.

¶18

:: 3 ::

¶19

Respondent’s counsel says no objection.

¶20

It would be convenient for them to attend

¶21

the court if the case is transferred to Mandya. Moreover the respondent has also filed a suit against the petitioner at Mandya court. For all these reasons, petition is allowed. Crl.Misc.93/2016 is withdrawn from the court of MMTC-III, Bengaluru and transferred to the Family Court, Mandya for adjudication in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Family Court, Mandya on 12.9.2022. The records in Crl.Misc.93/2016 be transmitted to the Family Court, Mandya.

¶22

Sd/JUDGE

¶23

Smt. Renuka v. Sri Ramadas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Renuka v. Sri Ramadas

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

Mr Veeresh Kandankovi Belludi Vs M/S Logipro Software Pvt. Ltd.

Dileep Vs State of Karnataka

Sachin Thelakar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K. Immanna Vs Sri. S. Nemojirao

Narasimha @ Rajappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nitya Govindaraju Vs Sri Vivekanandan