Smt. Putta Nagarani v. Sri Putta Premkar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY TR.C.M.P.NO.399 OF 2017 ORDER:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, 'C.P.C'), is filed to withdraw O.P.No.901 of 2017 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and transfer the same to any Court at Jagital or any other competent Court at Karimnagar on the following grounds viz., 1) The petitioner lodged a compliant against the respondent, which was registered as a case in Crime No.75 of 2017 of Jagital Town Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; 2) that she is unable to undertake journey covering the distance of more than 200 Kms., and 3) she has no means to maintain herself and she is depending upon her parents. 2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission.
3.
The petitioner did not dispute the relationship with the respondent and filing of a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage, Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') by the respondent herein. As she was subjected to cruelty by the respondent, she lodged the aforesaid complaint against him and it is still in crime stage and no charge sheet is filed. But, mere pendency of crime with Jagital Town Police Station is not a ground and even if charge sheet is filed, it will be tried by Judicial Magistrate of First Class only. Therefore, pendency of crime against the respondent at Jagital Town Police Station is not a ground to withdraw and transfer the O.P.
4.
The second ground raised before this Court is that the petitioner is totally depending upon her parents, who are aged persons staying at Jagital. No doubt, it is a difficult task for a woman to undertake journey without any assistance on every date of adjournment. But, such ground is no more available in view of guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam1 to the trial Courts to intimate to the parties about the availability of legal services, examination of witnesses by video conferencing and direction to deposit travelling, lodging and boarding expenses in terms of Order XXV CPC. In the said judgment, at para No.18 it was held as follows: "18.
We, therefore, direct that in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the Defendants/Respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of Defendants/Respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons. The safeguards can be: i) Availability of video conferencing facility. ii) Availability of legal aid service.
iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV Code of Civil Procedure.
iv) E-Mail address/phone number, if any, at which litigant from out station may communicate."
Therefore, in view of the above guidelines, since the petitioner being a woman expressed her inability to undertake journey for crossexamination by counsel for the respondent in the O.P., it can be 1 AIR 2017 SC 1345
recorded by video conferencing and if no such facility is available, the respondent herein (husband) shall deposit expenses for travelling, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV CPC. So also, the inability to undertake journey covering the distance of more than 200 KMs., from the place of her stay to the Court where the case is pending is also not a ground to transfer the case. 5.
The third ground urged by the petitioner is that she has no means to maintain herself. But, that by itself is not a ground to withdraw and transfer the case from one Court to another as expenses for travelling etc required to be deposited. In view of difficulty expressed by the petitioner, Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, is requested not to insist the appearance of the petitioner on every date of adjournment as long as she is being represented by a counsel and prosecuting the case on her behalf, expect on the date when her presence is specifically required for cross-examination to be recorded by the Court or for any other purpose, subject to deposit or payment of travelling, lodging and boarding expenses by the respondent in terms of Order XXV CPC. Hence, I find no ground to withdraw and transfer the case.
6.
Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of at the state of admission. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J JUNE 23, 2017 YVL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY TR.C.M.P.NO.399 OF 2017 Date: 23.06.2017 YVL