Navneet Wadhwa vs Dr. Simran Wadhwa on 16 August, 2022

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Navneet Wadhwa vs Dr. Simran Wadhwa on 16 August, 2022

Bench: V. Ramasubramanian

                                                       1

                                       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                         CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION


                               TRANSFER PETITION (CRL) NOS. 131-133 OF 2019



     NAVNEET WADHWA                                                     Petitioner(s)

                                                       VERSUS

     SIMRAN WADHWA AND ANR.                                        Respondent(s)


                                                 O R D E R

The petitioner, who is the husband of the first respondent-herein, has come up with the above petition seeking transfer of the proceedings now pending before the Family Court No. 2, Nagpur, Maharshtra under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Family Court, Rohini, Delhi.

Heard Mrs. Jyoti Taneja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

The short ground on which the petitioner seeks transfer of the proceedings is that he is suffering from Signature Not Verified bone cancer and that he is not in a position to undertake Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2022.08.22 11:15:32 IST Reason: a travel from Delhi where he is now residing, to Nagpur, Maharashtra.

According to the petitioner, he is wheel chair bound and that even the Family Court in Nagpur is not disabled friendly.

However, the above averments on the basis of which the husband seeks transfer, are disputed by the respondents.

In contrast, the first respondent claims to be suffering from a serious kidney disorder forcing her to undergo dialysis.

It is relevant to note that the claim made by the first respondent-wife is equally challenged by the petitioner.

In other words, the question as to whether the petitioner or the first respondent, who is more disabled, has itself become a serious matter of challenge.

It is not possible for this Court while dealing with a transfer Petition, to undertake a roving enquiry to find out who is more disabled.

But a few facts are sufficient for the disposal of the Transfer Petition.

The first is that the petitioner suffered an order for payment of maintenance, under Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 11.02.2013, alongwith an 3 order dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent in a collateral proceedings.

This order dated 11.02.2013 passed in common, both in the petition for divorce and in the petition for maintenance, has attained finality.

On the ground that the maintenance so fixed in the original order dated 11.02.2013 has not been paid, the first respondent has initiated proceedings for enforcement under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. The said petition for enforcement, in ER No. 266/2016 and ER No. 258/2018 were taken up by the Family Court alongwith an application for modification of the maintenance, filed by the petitioner-husband being Misc. Crl. Application No. 44/2016.

In all these three petitions, the Family Court passed an order on 18.01.2019 directing the petitioner-husband to pay the entire arrears of maintenance within one month as a condition precedent for deciding the application for modification.

The petitioner did not challenge the said order dated 18.01.2019. On the other hand, he has come up with the above petition for transfer of the proceedings.

Once, the order fixing maintenance has attained 4 finality, the petitioner cannot seek a transfer of the execution pending under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to another Court. The conditional order passed on 18.01.2019 by the Family Court, for taking up the application for modification, has also not been complied with. A period of more than three years has passed from the date of the said order. Even if the transfer is ordered, as prayed for, the order dated 18.01.2019 will stare at the face of the petitioner.

Therefore, however unfortunate the case may be on either side or on both sides, the petitioner does not deserve the indulgence of this Court for transfer. Therefore, the Transfer Petitions are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

…...................J (V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN) New Delhi August 16, 2022 5 ITEM NO.1604 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Transfer Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 131-133/2019 NAVNEET WADHWA Petitioner(s) VERSUS DR. SIMRAN WADHWA & ANR. Respondent(s) (IA No. 32086/2019 - EX-PARTE STAY, IA No. 121781/2020 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 16-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Adv. Mr. Krishan Kumar, AOR Mr. Vidur Kamra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Ms. Devdeep, Adv.

Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The transfer petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed order.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK SINGH)                                  (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
COURT MASTER (SH)                               COURT MASTER (NSH)

[Signed order is placed on the file]

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court - Daily Orders