Karnataka High Court
Prakash S/O Pundalik Gajakosh vs Priya W/O Prakash Gajakosh on 30 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100118/2017
BETWEEN:
Shri.Prakash S/o.Pundalik Gajakosh,
Age : 30 years, Occu : Service,
R/o.Saw Mill Chawl, Gandhi Chowk,
Old Dandeli Road, Dandeli,
Tal-Haliyal, Dist-Karwar
Pin- 581 325,
Now at H.No.52, VII Type, 2nd Colony,
Ambikanagar, Taluk-Haliyal,
Dist-Uttara Kannada. ...Petitioner
(By Sri.T.M.Nadaf, Advocate)
AND:
Smt.Priya W/o.Prakash Gajakosh,
Age : 26 years, Occu: Private Service,
R/o.C/o.Smt.Padma Indrajit Kale,
Behind CSI Church, Bailpar,
Old Dandeli, Tal-Haliyal,
District- Uttara Kannada- 581 325.
...Respondent
(By Sri.Venkatesh M.Kharvi, Advocate,)
This petition is filed under Section 407 of Cr.P.C
seeking to withdraw the petition for maintenance in
:2:
Criminal Miscellaneous No.287/2016 pending on the file of
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Dandeli and transfer the
same to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Yellapur I.C. at
Haliyal.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the
court, made the following:
ORDER
Though the matter is listed in the orders list with consent of both the sides it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-husband against the respondent-wife under Section 407 of Cr.P.C seeking transfer from the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Dandeli to the file of the Court at Haliyal.
3. The brief facts of the petitioner's case that, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was registered on 26.07.2010 before the Sub-Registrar, Haliyal (UK). The respondent stayed happily with the petitioner for two years in his house on the above given address at Dandeli. But later when the parents of the respondent started visiting the house of the petitioner, she had started behaving :3: indifferently with all his family members, the respondent never used to co-operate with the petitioner in his married life and she used to quarrel with the family members and always used to quarrel and create an unhealthy atmosphere in the family by using abusive and filthy language for no reason. It is stated that, since all the efforts to bring the respondent back went in vein. The petitioner herein issued the legal notice on 05.02.2014 calling upon the respondent to come and join his company, but she gave a vague reply and did not come. Therefore the petitioner filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court at Yellapur incharge at Haliyal on 24.03.2014, which is numbered as M.C.No.16/2014. So also the averment made that, during the pendency of the above suit for restitution of conjugal rights by the petitioner the respondent has filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the JMFC Court at Dandeli on 19.03.2016 seeking maintenance from the petitioner herein and making the averments that the petitioner neglected to maintain her. It is mentioned in :4: the petition that, respondent is more oftenly seen freely roaming with one Immanuel on his motor-bike, she likes to lead a luxurious life and wants to eat in big Hotels, wants to travel and visit various tourist spots. But the petitioner cannot afford, since he is from a conservative and simple family. The respondent is maintaining his face-book account and has number of face-book friends, interestingly it is in her maiden name i.e., "Priya Indrajeet Kale", she is always active on face-book and she has displayed her appealing photos in various poses on the face-book which amply speak about her character and extravagance.
4. The further averments that, as a counter blast the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C before the JMFC, Dandeli seeking maintenance in Criminal Miscellaneous No.287/2016, in view of the serious threats posed by the respondent her family members and her paramour the petitioner with difficulty and having hearty leaving his aged mother residing at Ambikanagar in the quarters allotted to him. The petitioner for the aforesaid :5: reason he is facing life threat he filed this petition for seeking transfer of case from Dandeli Court to Haliyal Court.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband, so also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission that, because of the illicit connection of the respondent with the paramour who is also arrayed as respondent in the matrimonial case proceeding. The petitioner is having a life threat, so it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the Court at Dandeli. Hence the learned counsel made the submission that, in view of the said threat the case at Dandeli Court may be transfered to the Court at Haliyal. It is also his submission that, the respondent is already attending the Court at Haliyal in respect of the suit filed seeking divorce. Hence he submitted to allow the petition as prayed for. :6:
7. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife, during the course of argument made the submission that, both the petitioner as well as respondent are residing at Dandeli itself, when they are residing at Dandeli there is no difficulty for petitioner-husband to attend the Court at Dandeli. Hence he submitted that, the distance in between the Dandeli and Haliyal is only 20 Kms. Hence he submitted that, no sufficient grounds are made out by the petitioner-husband seeking transfer of the said case from the file of Dandeli Court to Court at Haliyal. Hence he submitted to reject the petition.
8. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition and also the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the petition i.e., in respect of the petition seeking divorce filed by the husband against the wife, it is no doubt true, perusing the materials i.e., contents of the present petition as well as the petition filed seeking divorce on the file of the Court at Haliyal, the petitioner herein made some allegations as against the :7: wife that she is leading immoral life with one paramour, but sofar as those allegations are concerned it is for the concerned Court wherein the matter is pending to take decision about such allegations. Therefore this Court not going into the merits of the case regarding allegations made in the petition and reply or objection submitted by the wife, this Court has to see only the grounds made out by the petitioner-husband seeking transfer of the petition from the Dandeli Court to Haliyal Court. There are averments in the petition that, because she is leading immoral life with one paramour, there is life threat to the petitioner, so it is difficult to attend the court at Dandeli, but in the petition he has not mentioned in respect of alleged threat is concerned he has approached the police or not. Even if it is presumed that, there is life threat, certainly the petitioner can approach the jurisdictional police seeking protection. So far as the grounds seeking transfer is concerned that is only on the ground that he is having life threat. Looking to Section 407 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see the convenience of both the parties. It is :8: not convenience of only the husband. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioner/husband if really having an apprehension of life threat in attending the Court at Dandeli, he has to approach the police seeking protection in that regard. If such application is filed, the concerned police shall take decision in the matter. Hence no grounds to allow the petition. The petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckk