Bombay High Court
Sau. Neha W/O Chetan Manekar vs Chetan S/O Ashokrao Manekar And ... on 15 March, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 appln71.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.71/2015
Sau. Neha W/o Chetan Manekar,
aged about 24 Yrs., Occu. Household,
R/at C/o Govindrao Sawle,
Wankhade Nagar, Dabki Road,
Akola. ..Applicant.
..Versus..
1. Chetan S/o Ashokrao Manekar,
aged about 28 Yrs., Occu. Business.
2. Ashokrao S/o Purushottam Manekar,
aged 55 Yrs., Occu. Agricultural.
3. Sau. Usha Ashokrao Manekar,
aged about 24 Yrs., Occu. Household.
Non-applicants No.1 to 3
residing at Metikheda, Tah. Kalamb,
Distt. Yawtmal. ..Non-applicants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- -
Shri N.S. Warulkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri S.S. Bhalerao, Advocate for the non-applicants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 15. 3.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri N.S. Warulkar, advocate for the applicant and Shri S.S. Bhalerao,
2 appln71.15
advocate for the non-applicants.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The applicant has moved this application under Section 407 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure praying that the proceedings filed by the applicant under the
provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class at Yavatmal be transferred to the Court of Judicial
Magistrate First Class at Akola.
4. According to the applicant when she filed the proceedings in the Court at
Yavatmal she was living with her parents who were residing at Yavatmal, however,
during the pendency of the proceedings the parents of applicant have shifted to Akola
and have settled at Akola therefore, the applicant is also required to shift to Akola.
Relying on the judgment given in the case of Sumita Singh V/s. Kumar Sanjay and
another reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41 and the judgment given in the case of Shreya
Prashant Agale V/s. Prashant Prakash Agale reported in 2012(5) Bom. C.R. 676 the
learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the convenience of wife has to be
looked at while dealing with the issue of place at which the proceedings should be tried.
It is prayed that considering the facts on the record, the proceedings pending in the
3 appln71.15
Court at Yavatmal be transferred to the Court at Akola.
5. Shri Bhalerao, learned advocate for the non-applicants has opposed the
application. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the non-applicants before this Court, it
is pointed out that the applicant had been attending the proceedings before the Court at
Yavatmal, that she has filed affidavit in lieu of her evidence on 26 th March, 2015 and
then she sought adjournments on 17 th April, 2015 and 27th May, 2015 and then only to
protract the matter has filed this application in September, 2015. It is further pointed
out that at the time of filing of the application, the applicant was residing at Yavatmal
and, therefore, the proceedings were rightly filed in the Court at Yavatmal as according
to Section 27 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the
proceedings are to be filed before the Court in the jurisdiction of which the cause of
action had arisen. It is submitted that the present application be dismissed.
6. After considering the facts on the record and submissions made on behalf of the
non-applicants, I find that the claim of the applicant for transfer of proceedings from the
Court at Yavatmal to the Court at Akola is not supported by proper pleadings and
material. Though the applicant has come out with the case that at the time of filing of
the application before the Court at Yavatmal she was residing with her parents at
Yavatmal and subsequently as her parents have shifted to Akola she is also required to
4 appln71.15
shift to Akola along with them, the applicant has not given the relevant details as to
when the parents of the applicant have shifted to Akola. In my view, these details are
relevant in view of the contention of the non-applicants. The learned advocate for the
applicant has submitted that the applicant has filed proceedings under Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court at Akola sometime in January, 2015 i.e.
perhaps on her shifting to Akola. However, the non-applicants have stated on affidavit
that the applicant continued to participate in the proceedings at Yavatmal even after
January, 2015 till May, 2015 and the present application is filed in September, 2015. In
the facts of the case, I am not inclined to consider the prayer of the applicant for
transfer of the proceedings from Court at Yavatmal to the Court at Akola as the
applicant has failed to substantiate the ground on which she is seeking transfer of the
proceedings. The proposition laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned
advocate for the applicant cannot be disputed, however, the judgments do not support
the applicant in the facts of the present case.
In view of the above, the application is dismissed. In the circumstances, the
parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
