Allowed

O.N.Gopi Achari and Others v. Jumi Lekshmanan and Another

Kerala HC3 Apr 2012Tr.P(Crl.)/86/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this transfer petition, the Court considered whether a Maintenance Commission petition filed against the Petitioners and associated criminal charges for domestic violence should be transferred from Pathanamthitta to Vaikom. The Court upheld the transfer.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Crl.M.C.No.166/2011 from CJM, Pathanamthitta to JMF, Vaikom is allowed.

O.N.Gopi Achari and Others Vs Jumi Lekshmanan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2012/14TH CHAITHRA 1934

¶5

Tr.P(Crl.).No. 86 of 2011 (B)

¶6

MC.166/2011 of C.J.M.PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT 1-3:

¶8

O.N.GOPI ACHARI, AGED 62 YEARS

¶9

S/O.NARAYANAN ACHARI, OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE

¶10

BRAHMANGALAM, BRAHMAMANGALAM P.O, CHEMBU VILLAGE

¶11

THALAYOLAPARAMBU VIA, VAIKOM.

¶12

LEELA GOPI, AGED 60 YEARS

¶13

W/O.O.N.GOPI ACHARI,OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, BRAHMANGALAM

¶14

BRAHMAMANGALAM P.O, CHEMBU VILLAGE

¶15

THALAYOLAPARAMBU VIA, VAIKOM.

¶16

ABHILASH GOPI,, AGED 33 YEARS

¶17

S/O.GOPI ACHARI,OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, BRAHMANGALAM

¶18

BRAHMAMANGALAM P.O, CHEMBU VILLAGE

¶19

THALAYOLAPARAMBU VIA, VAIKOM.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.K.S.AJAYAGHOSH

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER, STATE:

¶22

JUMI LEKSHMANAN

¶23

D/O.LEKSHMANAN, D/O.LEKSHMANAN ACHARI, AGED 31 YEARS

¶24

JUBIL TOWERS, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶25

PATHANAMTHITTA P.O.

¶26

STATE OF KERALA

¶27

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶28

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

¶29

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶30

THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

amk

¶32

Tr.P(Crl.).No. 86 of 2011 (B)

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-

¶35

ANNEXURE A1. A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN M.C NO. 166 O F 2011 ON THE FILE OF CJM COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶36

ANNEXURE A2. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.07.2011 PREFERRED BY THE DEFACTO-COMPLAINT BEFORE CJM, COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶37

ANNEXURE A3. A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.567/2011 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.

¶38

ANNEXURE A4. A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 28.05.2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. AYURVEDA COLLEGE HOSPITAL, TRIPPUNITHURA.

¶39

ANNEXURE A5. A TRUE COPYOF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 30.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE MATHA HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶40

ANNEXURE A6. A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 12.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVT.AYURVEDIC DISPENSARY, ALAKODE.

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

amk

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J

¶46

----------------------------

¶47

Crl.M.C.No. 86 OF 2011

¶48

-------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2012.

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

This is a petition under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking an order for transfer of M.C.No.166/2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta to the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom. M.C.No.166/2011 is a petition filed by the first respondent against the petitioners under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

¶51

There is yet another prosecution as

¶52

C.C.No.169/2011 alleging offences under Sections 498 A and 406 r/w Section 34 IPC. By the order in transfer petition No.87/2011 I have already ordered to transfer that case to the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom.

¶53

In this case, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the first respondent and are residing in the matrimonial home situated within jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. They

¶54

Crl.M.C.No. 86 OF 2011 2

¶55

are also dragged to the matrimonial dispute. In the event the case is tobe conducted at Pathanamthitta, they had to travel from Vaikom to Pathanamthitta. The major part of the offences alleged occurred within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom. Of course, there is allegation regarding some incident occurred at Pathanamthitta. In the above circumstance, I find that it would be appropriate to transfer this case also to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom.

¶56

The main objection raised by the learned counsel

¶57

for the first respondent is that the petitioner had to look after a child aged 2 ½ years and therefore, the trial of the case at Vaikom would cause hardship and difficulties to the 2st respondent. I do not think that the first respondent has to appear before the trial court on all posting dates. The prosecution can be conducted through the pleader. She needs to appear before the court only for giving evidence. Therefore, the plea of hardship and difficulties to the 1^st respondent is devoid of merit. On the other hand, if the case is tried at Pathanamthitta, the

¶58

Crl.M.C.No. 86 OF 2011 3

¶59

hardship and difficulties that aged parents-in-law have to suffer are irreparable and no judicial approval can be given for it. The prayer for transfer sought in quite appropriate.

¶60

In the result, this petition is allowed. Crl.M.C.No.166/2011 now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta would stand transfered to the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom. The trial court shall permit the first respondent to prosecute the petitioner through pleader and her personal presence need be insisted only for giving evidence provided duly authorized pleader represents the petitioner throughout.

¶61

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE

¶62

amk

O.N.Gopi Achari and Others v. Jumi Lekshmanan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.N.Gopi Achari and Others v. Jumi Lekshmanan and Another

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

Valsala Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala

Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Rejual Karim Vs State

Sudheesh Vs Reni

Subaida & Another Vs State of Kerala & Others]

P.L.Preman Vs O.N.Sathi and Another