Allowed

M. Pradeep v. K.Anupa

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2022CRL.P/8886/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 407 CrPC sought transfer of DV Act proceedings from Bidar to Bengaluru. The High Court allowed the transfer, citing the petitioner's residency in Bengaluru, the respondent's pending cases there, and the convenience of other family members.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.541/2019 pending at Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar, were withdrawn and transferred to the court of MMTC-1, Mayohall unit, Bengaluru.

M. Pradeep Vs K.Anupa — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8886 OF 2019

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

M. Pradeep Aged 36 years Son of M.Prasad Babu Presently residing at House No.6, Survey No.88/2 13^th Cross, Annapurneshwari Layout Opp. Asha Kiran School Horamavu Road (wrongly as Horandu Road) R.M.Nagar, Bangalore-560 043.

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

(By Sri Arjun Rego, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

K. Anupa, Aged 28 years Wife of Pradeep Moparthi Presently residing at C/o D.Pramod, S/o Lucas H. No.2-180, TDB Colony Haladkeri-K Tq. Dist. Bidar-585403.

¶11

M. Prasad Babu Son of M. Shankeraiah Aged about 62 years Occupation retired Engineer Residing at H.No.06, 13^th Cross Annapurneshwari Layout

¶12

:: 2 ::

¶13

Opp. Asha Kiran Needs School Horamavu Road, R.M.Nagar Bangalore-560 043.

¶14

Lalitha Wife of M. Prasad Babu Aged about 58 years Residing at H.No.06, 13^th Cross Annapurneshwari Layout Opp. Asha Kiran Needs School Horamavu Road, R.M.Nagar Bangalore-560 043.

¶15

Praveen Son of M. Prasad Babu Aged 29 years Occupation private service Residing at H.No.06, 13^th Cross Annapurneshwari Layout Opp. Asha Kiran Needs School Horamavu Road, R.M.Nagar Bangalore-560 043.

¶16

M. Prashanti Wife of Sanjeeva Kumar Vare Aged 40 years Occupation home maker Residing at H.No.10, 13^th Cross Asha Kiran Needs School Annapurneshwari Layout Raghavendra Circle Bengaluru-560 043.

¶17

Sanjukumar Son of Jeeva Ratnam Aged 45 years Occupation private service Residing at H.No.10, 13^th Cross Asha Kiran Needs School Annapurneshwari Layout Raghavendra Circle Bengaluru-560 043.

¶18

:: 3 ::

¶19

Nemli Kanti Aruna Vijay Wife of N. Sudheer Aged about 55 years Occupation home maker Residing at H.No.8-4-33/54 Vallabhanagar Street Old Bowinpally Balnagar Mandal R.R. District, Telangana State-500 011.

¶20

M. Vijayanand Son of Late Zackariah Aged 50 years Occupation private service Residing at H.No.5-21/12 Hitanagar, Tenali-522 201 Andhra Pradesh.

¶21

Naladi Vijaylaxmi Wife of Devid Raj Aged about 48 years Residing at H.No.3-96 Kattavaram Village Tenali Mandal, Guntur District Telangana-522 201.

¶22

…Respondents

¶23

(By Sri B.G. Kemparaju, Advocate for R1- Absent; Vide Order dated 22.12.2021 R2 to R9 are deleted)

¶24

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. praying to transfer the case in Crl.Misc.No.541/2019 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar to a Court of competent jurisdiction in Bangalore, etc.

¶25

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

¶26

:: 4 ::

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri Arjun Rego, learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for respondent No.1 is absent. Order sheet dated 05.03.2022, 25.03.2022, 24.05.2022 and 21.06.2022 show that counsel for respondent No.1 is continuously absent.

¶29

This is a petition under Section 407 of Cr.P.C., filed by respondent No.1 in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’ for short) registered as Crl.Misc.No.541/2019 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar. The petitioner has sought transfer of the said case to any of the jurisdictional courts in Bengaluru.

¶30

It is stated in the petition that after the marriage of the petitioner with the first respondent on 05.09.2015, the first respondent came over to Bengaluru to live with the petitioner. She is actually not a permanent resident of Bidar.

¶31

:: 5 ::

¶32

Intentionally she instituted the proceeding in the court at Bidar to cause inconvenience to the petitioner. The first respondent is already attending the courts in Bengaluru in connection with two cases, namely, in C.C.No.53398/2020, where she is a complainant and another being C.C.No.55275/2021, where she is an accused. These two cases are pending and she is regularly appearing.

¶33

Actually the first respondent and the petitioner hail from Telangana and that the petitioner is working in Bengaluru. The prayer No.4 in Crl.Misc.No.541/2019 shows that the first respondent wants a residential order to be passed for accommodating her in Bengaluru. He further submits that respondents 2 to 6 are also residents of Bengaluru. So if the proceedings take place at Bidar, it will cause inconvenience not only to the petitioner, but also to other respondents. In the

¶34

:: 6 ::

¶35

backdrop of these circumstances, it is necessary that the proceeding in Crl.Misc.No.541/2019

¶36

should be withdrawn from the court at Bidar and transferred to jurisdictional court in Bengaluru.

¶37

I have perused the petition filed under

¶38

Section 12 of the D.V.Act. The fact that the first respondent came over to Bengaluru after the marriage to live with the petitioner is not disputed. Subsequently, because of some differences between the husband and wife, they might have separated. In para-14 of the petition under Section 12 of the D.V.Act, it is stated that presently she is residing with her uncle at Haladkeri-K in Bidar Taluk. Though she can institute a proceeding under the D.V.Act, in a Court which has got jurisdiction over the place where she is presently residing, having regard to the nature of the relief sought in her prayer, i.e., separate residence in Bengaluru for her and her

¶39

:: 7 ::

¶40

minor child; as also having regard to the fact that respondents 2 to 6 being residents of Bengaluru; it is better that the case be tried in a court at Bengaluru.

¶41

If the first respondent is already

¶42

attending the court in Bengaluru in connection with two cases as mentioned above, she could have instituted the proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V.Act in Bengaluru court itself.

¶43

Taking all these aspects in to

¶44

consideration, to see that no inconvenience is caused to the parties to the proceeding, especially respondents 2 and 3 who are aged, it can be stated that transfer can be granted. Hence the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Petition is allowed.

¶47

Proceeding in Crl.Misc.No.541/2019 pending on the file of Civil Judge and

¶48

:: 8 ::

¶49

JMFC, Bidar is withdrawn from that Court and transferred to the court of MMTC-1, Mayohall unit, Bengaluru, for adjudication in accordance with law.

¶50

All the records in Crl.Misc.No.541/2019 shall be transmitted to the MMTC-1, Mayohall unit, Bengaluru, immediately.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Kmv/-

M. Pradeep v. K.Anupa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Pradeep v. K.Anupa

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. Sumithra Bhat Vs Mr. Ben Compose

Sri.Kedila Narasimha Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Jyothi Electricals Vs Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited

Sumanth @ Suman Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Komarla Feeds Vs N Sathish

Sri Subramanya Vs Sri.H.v.Yogesh