Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ranjitha. S vs Sri. Manjunatha. R on 12 April, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
C.P. No.309/2017
A/W
CRL. P. No.9005/2017
BETWEEN:
Smt. Ranjitha.S
w/o Manjunatha.R
Aged about 23 years,
R/at No.32, 4th Cross,
Manarayanapalya,
Muneshwara Lay-out,
Sulthanpalya, R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 032.
...PETITIONER
(BY: Smt. H.R.Anitha, Adv. )
AND:
Sri Manjunatha.R
S/o Ramanna,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Kondapura village,
Virupakshipura Hobli,
Channapatna Taluk, 571501
Ramanagara District. ...RESPONDENT
(BY: Smt. K.M.Rohini, Adv. )
2
In Crl. P.No.9005/2017
BETWEEN:
Smt. Ranjitha.S
w/o Manjunatha.R
Aged about 23 years,
R/at No.32, 4th Cross,
Manarayanapalya,
Muneshwara Lay-out,
Sulthanpalya, R.T.Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 032.
...PETITIONER
(BY: Smt. H.R.Anitha, Adv. )
AND:
Sri Manjunatha.R
S/o Ramanna,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Kondapura village,
Virupakshipura Hobli,
Channapatna Taluk, 571501
Ramanagara District. ...RESPONDENT
(BY: Smt. K.M.Rohini, Adv. )
C.P.No.309/2017 is filed u/s.24 of CPC praying to (i)
withdraw the G & WC No.05/2016 pending before Sr.Civil
Judge & JMFC at Channapatna and transfer the same to
Family Court at Bengaluru and allow this petition, (ii) pass
any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case
including award of costs in the interest of justice and
equity.
3
Crl.P.9005/2017 is filed u/s.407 Cr.P.C. praying that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to transfer the
Crl.Misc.No.02/2016 pending before the Senior Civil Judge
and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Channapatna transfer
to Family Court at Bengaluru and allow this petition.
These petitions coming on for admission, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
These two petitions are filed by the wife seeking for withdrawal of G & WC No.05/2016 and Crl.Misc.No.02/2016 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Channapatna and for transfer of the same to Family Court at Bengaluru.
2. It is the contention of Smt.H.R.Anitha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in view of the petitioner having filed Crl.Misc.2/2016 before the Senior Civil Judge, Senior Division, Channapatna and same is being contested by the respondent-husband, there is a 4 threat to the petitioner's life at Channapatna. On these grounds it is contended that if both petitions are transferred to Bengaluru, no hardship would be caused to the respondent. It is further contended that on account of threat being posed for petitioner by her mother-in-law and her husband i.e., respondent herein, petitioner would be unable to travel to Channapatna. Hence she prays for transfer of both petitions to Family Court at Bengaluru.
3. Per contra, Smt. K.M.Rohini, learned counsel appearing for respondent in both the petitions submits that except self-assertions being made by the petitioner in that regard, there is no material placed by her to demonstrate that at any point of time either the respondent or the mother-in-law having threatened the petitioner. Hence, she prays for dismissal of these petitions.
4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it discloses that 5 distance between two places Bengaluru and Channapatna is hardly 60 kilometers and it is well connected by all modes of transport and as such the issue of distance would not be of much relevance. The pleadings of the parties would disclose that out of the wed-lock a female child is born which is aged about 4 years and it is also in the custody of respondent-husband. It is also alleged by respondent that petitioner had abandoned the child, which has been seriously disputed by the petitioner. It is an issue which requires to be resolved in the pending G & WC No.05/2016. Except self-assertion being made by the petitioner that there is threat to her life at Channapatna, she has not placed any material to demonstrate that she had filed any complaint against the respondent or their family members in that regard. Her assertion requires to be considered for purpose of rejection. In the event of there being any such threat the petitioner can take appropriate steps in that regard and only after placing 6 cogent material her prayer for transfer of these petitions from Channapatna to Bengaluru can be entertained. Hence at this stage the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be entertained. Further, it is made clear that in the event of any complaint being filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional police, it is needless to say that the jurisdictional police would act upon such complainant in accordance with law.
With these observations, these petitions stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Snb/