Archive

Archive for the ‘CrPC 407 Transfer’ Category

Allahabad HC- merely the reason that the applicant is Woman a resident of Other district and that some other proceedings are pending at that district it is not sufficient to transfer the proceedings.

September 21, 2012 Leave a comment

“However, merely the reason that the applicant is resident of Gorakhpur and that some other proceedings are pending at Gorakhpur it is not sufficient to transfer the proceedings particularly when in the application there is no averment explaining difficulty likely to be faced by the applicant in traveling to Kanpur and attending the proceedings. There is no averment that she is facing difficulty in getting legal assistance at Kanpur or that she is under any kind of threat if she attends proceedings at Kanpur. On the other hand, in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.2 it has been expressed that he is ready and willing to pay the traveling expenses from Gorakhpur to Kanpur by sleeper class for the purpose of attending the proceedings and incidental expenses. 
In Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha Vs. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha and others AIR 1997 SC 1036 it was held that where the party is agreeing to bear expenditure of travel etc. of the applicant to attend the Court, transfer of proceedings is not necessary.”

 

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

Court No. – 4

Case :- TRANSFER APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. – XXX of 2011

Petitioner :- Smt. XXXXXXXX
Respondent :- Principal Judge, Family Court And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- XXXXXX
Respondent Counsel :- XXXXXX

Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manuj Gupta, respondent No.2 in person.
This is an application under Section 24 C.P.C. for transfer of divorce petition instituted by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court at Kanpur to Gorakhpur where the applicant is said to be residing.
Two points have been raised for seeking transfer of the divorce petition from Kanpur to Gorakhpur. The first ground is that the applicant is a resident of Gorakhpur and being a lady she cannot travel to Kanpur easily. The other ground is that other cases, one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the other under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are also pending at Gorakhpur.
The transfer application has been strongly opposed by respondent No.2 on the ground that the applicant has been making false statements and is adopting harassing tactics. He is a law student of Meerut College affiliated to the Chowdhary Charan Singh University, Meerut and it will be more difficult for him to go to Gorakhpur. He has further submitted that at Gorakhpur he is not getting a proper lawyer and every time in other suits he has to engage a new counsel.
In the transfer application or in the affidavit in support thereof there is no averment about pendency of any other proceedings as argued, at Gorakhpur. The only relevant averments are in paragraphs 11, 14 and 1`5 of the application which are reproduced herein below:
“11. That the applicant is a lady and her father is aged about 62 years and mother is aged about 60 years and being pardanashin lady she can not travel from District Gorakhpur to Kanpur.
14. That the applicant are resident of Gorakhpur and marriage of the applicant has also solemnized at Gorakhpur and being a woman it is settled law that suit would be tried at place where wife is a resident therefore, the suit is liable to be transferred at Gorakhpur.
15. That it is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has no source of income for livelihood herself and also dependent of father and mother of applicant.”
The reference of the two cases said to be pending at Gorakhpur has been made only in paragraph 19 of the rejoinder affidavit.
It is well acknowledged that the courts are always liberal in allowing matrimonial proceeding to be prosecuted at a place which is convenient to the parties, particularly that which is more convenient to the wife. It is further in the interest of justice that all proceedings arising therefrom be consolidated and considered together.
However, merely the reason that the applicant is resident of Gorakhpur and that some other proceedings are pending at Gorakhpur it is not sufficient to transfer the proceedings particularly when in the application there is no averment explaining difficulty likely to be faced by the applicant in traveling to Kanpur and attending the proceedings. There is no averment that she is facing difficulty in getting legal assistance at Kanpur or that she is under any kind of threat if she attends proceedings at Kanpur. On the other hand, in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.2 it has been expressed that he is ready and willing to pay the traveling expenses from Gorakhpur to Kanpur by sleeper class for the purpose of attending the proceedings and incidental expenses.
In Shiv Kumari Devendra Ojha Vs. Ramajor Shitla Prasad Ojha and others AIR 1997 SC 1036 it was held that where the party is agreeing to bear expenditure of travel etc. of the applicant to attend the Court, transfer of proceedings is not necessary.
In view of the above, coupled with the fact that the two proceedings at Gorakhpur are only in connection with grant of maintenance which could be given to the applicant more appropriately in the divorce proceedings itself, I am of the view that no case for transfer has been made out.
In view of the overall situation of the case, I do not consider it fit and proper to transfer the divorce case to Gorakhpur.
The applicant till date has not filed even her written statement in the divorce case.
The applicant shall file her written statement at Kanpur either in person or through an Advocate within a period of one month from today.
Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that the trial of a petition under this Act shall, so far as is practicable, be continued from day to day until its conclusion and every petition shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavor be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent.
In view of the above mandate of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur is directed to proceed with the divorce petition and decid it within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, provided there is no legal impediment in deciding the same.
The application is rejected.
Order Date :- 14.9.2012
brizesh

 

http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebShowJudgment.do

it is a right of every litigant, who is facing proceeding in a Court, that justice should not only be done but should also seem to be done and if a litigant feels that what he was seeing was not justice but injustice, he has a right to move transfer application-Delhi HC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Date of Reserve: 2.9.2008
Date of Order: 8.9.2008
CCP (Ref) No. 9/2008

Court On Its Own Motion … Petitioner
Versus
Sunil Seth and Ors. … Respondents

1. This reference for contempt has been placed before me for consideration. The reference was sent by MM Patiala House through District Judge wherein he has prayed that this Court, if deems fit, should take cognizance of criminal contempt against the respondents Shri Sunil Seth, Smt. Kanchan Seth, Shri Surender Seth, Smt. Bindu Khanna and their Counsel Shri Rubinder Ghumman and Ms. Anu Mehta. The cause for sending reference to this Court was pendency of a criminal complaint filed by  Ms. Rashmi Seth w/o Shri Sunil Seth before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against all her in-laws against whom the Court has prayed for taking cognizance of contempt of Court.
2. During pendency of the case, the trial Court passed an order of bail of the inlaws. While he directed the other in-laws to be released on executing personal bond and surety bond of Rs.20,000/- each, in respect of husband he passed an order for his release on executing personal bond and surety bond of Rs.50,000/- with the result he had to remain in jail for sometime as surety for this heavy amount could not be arranged. There were other circumstances, by which the husband and his family were aggrieved and they made an application of transfer of the criminal case from the Court of this MM to some other MM. In the transfer application allegations of bias were made against the learned
MM quoting certain orders of the learned MM. The learned MM was informed about the moving of this transfer application by the respondents. The learned MM after considering the application made by the accused persons for transfer has made this reference.

3. The learned MM seems to have spent a lot of time in framing this reference
petition which runs into 37 pages and annexures to the reference run into another more than 100 pages. After perusal of the entire reference I find the reference is not worth the paper wasted by the learned MM on it. I find no imputation had been made against the learned MMs Court but of bias which was inferred from the orders passed by him. It is surprising that the learned MM should have sent this reference of contempt only on the allegations of bias made against him. However, on perusal of this reference, I feel that the learned MM definitely seems to be biased in favour of the wife and against the husband
and other in-laws. Otherwise, there was no reason for him to get provoked for sending this reference, so that the family members of the husband are called by this Court in criminal contempt, despite the fact that no person insinuation was made against him.
4. I consider it is a right of every litigant, who is facing proceeding in a Court, that justice should not only be done but should also seem to be done and if a litigant feels that what he was seeing was not justice but injustice, he has a right to move transfer application and if bias is inferred from the orders passed by the Court, the Court has no reason to send a reference for criminal contempt. This reference is rejected. There is no ground to summon the respondents. A copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Delhi. A copy of this order be also sent to the Inspecting Judge of the learned MM and to Honble the Chief Justice.

Sd./-

September 8, 2008 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

Categories: CrPC 407 Transfer, Judgments Tags:

Interim Order on Transfer of Case by Bombay High Court

May 11, 2012 1 comment

The case against the Judge was file under CrPC 407 and was contended that unfair and impartial trail cannot be conducted in the Hon’ble Court.

sjs APPLN-272.2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE  CRIMINAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.272 OF 2012

Amol R. Kurhe …. Applicant

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra
& Ors. …. Respondents

Applicant in-person present.
Ms U.V. Kejriwal, APP, for the State.

CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J.

DATED: APRIL 03, 2012
P.C:

1. Notice to the respondents, returnable on 8-5-2012. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of the State.

2. The grievance of the applicant that he is being required by the Family Court at Akola to come frequently almost every alternate day should be noted by the learned Judge and the learned Judge may give reasonable time to enable the applicant to appear before the Court so that the matter can be finished in minimum number of adjournments.

 
(R.C. CHAVAN, J.)

 

http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/criminal/2012/APPLN27212030412.pdf

Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.