Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Allada Sudarshana Rao, vs Allada Sarada Krishna Sharada, on 28 June, 2021
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking
withdrawal of D.V.C.No.41 of 2019 from the file of VI Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram and
transfer the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First
Class/Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is:
The marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with
respondent No.1 on 16.02.2017 and their marriage was
consummated. Thereafter respondent No.1 joined matrimonial
home at Bhubaneswar and after one month she left to her parents'
house. The couple had no issues. While so, respondent No.1 filed
F.C.O.P.No.701 of 2018 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking
maintenance on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court -cum-
Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and subsequently, she
filed D.V.C.No.41 of 2019 on the file of the learned VI Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmahendravaram, East
Godavari District. The further case of petitioner is that he is
working in Secretariat of Odissa State and he is facing difficulty in
getting leave for two or three days in each month to attend the
cases at different places. The further case of the petitioner is that
respondent No.1 has filed two cases at two different places only to
harass the petitioner and if same date is given in both the Courts
it is not possible for him to attend both the Courts on the same
day as the distances between both the Courts is 500 Kms. Hence,
this transfer petition.
3. Heard Sri P.Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2-
state. As per the direction of this Court by order dated 01.04.2021,
learned counsel for the petitioner has taken out personal notice on
respondent No.1 and as per proof of service filed vide USR
No.28184 of 2021 the notice was served on respondent No.1 on
22.04.2021, but there was no representation on her behalf.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that both the cases
are filed with one cause of action and same prayer, as such, both
the cases are required to be tried together. He further submits that
the petitioner is facing difficulty in attending both the Courts
located at different places by traveling far distances, particularly
during this pandemic period due to lack of transport and it is
impossible for petitioner to attend both the Courts if the date of
adjournment fixed by both the Courts is same. Learned counsel
for petitioner further submits that as petitioner is working in
Odissa State and no prejudice would be caused to respondent
No.1 if D.V.O.P. is transferred to the Court at Visakhapatnam as
she is attending the Court at Visakhapatnam in F.C.O.P.
5. It will be difficult for the accused to appear before the courts
in both the Districts at a time on one and the same day where two
cases are filed with similar contentions and if the cases are tried
separately there is likelihood of conflicting judgments. (Emphasis
supplied), Mandru Salmon Raju vs. State of A.P.1
6. The above case squarely applies to the present case as
F.C.O.P.No.701 of 2018 and D.V.C.No.41 of 2019 are filed with
similar contentions and the parties are one and the same. Time
and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed orders
transferring cases from one place to another place by taking into
consideration the exigencies of the cases on individual basis.
7. While dealing with transfer petitions, the Court has to see
the grounds urged in the case and weigh the same in proper
perspective before passing the order in transfer petitions. In the
event the transferee Court finds that the accused is seeking
transfer on flimsy grounds, it can always either reject the same or
impose costs. At the same time the convenience of both the parties
has to be balanced. In the case on hand transfer of the case is
sought on two grounds one is on the ground of difficulty faced by
the petitioner in getting leave and inconvenience faced by him in
traveling long distances for every adjournment in both the cases
and another is that both the cases are filed on similar points.
8. As per the cause title in domestic violence case respondent
No.1 is residing in Rajamahendravaram and though she was
served with notice she has not chosen to contest the matter and it
appears that respondent No.1 has not filed any petition seeking
1Tr.CRL.P.No.119 OF 2018
Tr.CRL.P.No.120 OF 2018
AND
Tr.CRL.P.No.133 OF 2018
transfer of F.C.O.P.No.701 of 2018 pending before the Court at
Visakhapatnam. Further she is attending the said case at
Visakhapatnam. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to her if
the domestic violence case is transferred as sought by the
petitioner and it will be convenient to both the parties. In view of
the same, this petition deserves to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, this transfer criminal petition is allowed.
D.V.C.No.41 of 2019 is withdrawn from the file of VI Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamendravaram and transferred
to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class/Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J
Date :28.06.2021
IKN
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
(Allowed)
TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.10 of 2021
28.06.2021
IKN
