Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 780 (MP)

DEEPAK SHUKLA v. SAVITA SHUKLA

2002-08-16

NARAIN SINGH

body2002
NARAIN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks transfer of M. J. C. No. 4/2002, pending against this petitioner in the Court of C. J. M. Katni, wherein, the amount of maintenance granted u/s. 125 of the Cr. P. C. , has to be realised. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, who is the husband of non-applicant, his wife's father Mr. Mahendra Chanpuria so also her uncle Mr. Jogeshwar, in addition to two of her brothers, are practicing in Katni, who dominate the Bar, and it is for this reason that no Advocate, practicing at Katni, is ready and willing to take the brief of this petitioner. Then the Advocates engaged from Bhopal so also Jabalpur, refused to attend the Court at Katni, on account of misbehaviour by members of the family of non-applicant. It is further stated on behalf of the petitioner that on account of his desertion by non-applicant, he filed a divorce suit at Bhopal, on 4-4-1994, and the non-applicant filed application in the Court of C. J. M. Katni, u/s. 125 of the Cr. P. C. , seeking maintenance. Since the petitioner's counsel was misbehaved and threatened at Katni, he refused to attend the case on next date of hearing and thus an ex parte order was passed in favour of non-applicant, awarding her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month since January, 1995. The father of non-applicant filed one private complaint in the Court of A. C. J. M. Katni, against the petitioner for offences punishable u/ss. 120-B, 468, 469, 419 and 420 of the I. P. C. , but the same was dismissed on 20-2-1995 and the applicant was discharged. A copy of the order sheet in aforesaid private complaint is marked as Annexure A. The non-applicant filed a case u/s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, at Katni, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, but when petitioner's counsel Mr. Rajendra Shukla, reached Katni to attend the proceedings, he was assaulted in Court campus, which is recorded by the A. D. J. in the order sheet and police protection was provided to Mr. Shukla, Advocate. Rajendra Shukla, reached Katni to attend the proceedings, he was assaulted in Court campus, which is recorded by the A. D. J. in the order sheet and police protection was provided to Mr. Shukla, Advocate. A copy of order sheet recorded by the ADJ is annexed as Annexure B. Thereafter, this Court by order dated 23-8-1996, passed in M. C. C. No. 54/95, transferred all the aforesaid cases pending at Katni to Jabalpur, on account of criminal behaviour of non-applicant and her father so also the relatives. The orders passed by this Court in M. C. C. No. 54/95, is marked as Annexure C. ( 3 ) IT is noted that by aforesaid order dated 23-8-1996, passed by this Court in M. C. C. No. 54/95 (Annexure C), the petitioner's divorce suit bearing No. 83/94, which earlier stood transferred from Bhopal to Katni, non-applicant's application filed u/s. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, registered as Civil Suit No. 14-A/95, which was pending in the Court of First Addl. District Judge, Katni, so also Civil Suits No. 83-A/94 and 303-A/94, filed by father of non-applicant against this petitioner, were transferred from Katni, to the Court of Ist Addl. Distt. Judge, Jabalpur, for disposal according to law, on the ground that the petitioner is not getting any counsel to represent him at Katni. ( 4 ) THE civil suit filed by non-applicant's-father against this petitioner seeking the relief of permanent injunction against next marriage, stood rejected by the Court of Tenth Addl. Distt. Judge, Jabalpur, by order dated 24-12-1998, which is marked as Annexure D. It is also noteworthy that while disposing of petitioner's Civil Revision No. 1723/97, filed against the order of maintenance, passed u/s. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, in Civil Suit No. 2-A/96, on 28-7-1998, this Court not only reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 2500/- to Rs. 1500/- per month, but also observed that the conduct of non-applicant seems to be full of acrimony and anger. A copy of this order is annexed as Annexure E. ( 5 ) IT is further found stated on behalf of the petitioner that on 16/04/1998, non-applicant's father was warned by Tenth Addl. Distt. Judge, Jabalpur, against his conduct during the Court proceedings in Civil Suit No. 21-A/99. A copy of this order is annexed as Annexure E. ( 5 ) IT is further found stated on behalf of the petitioner that on 16/04/1998, non-applicant's father was warned by Tenth Addl. Distt. Judge, Jabalpur, against his conduct during the Court proceedings in Civil Suit No. 21-A/99. A photocopy of certified copy of this order is marked as Annexure F and lastly, in a petition filed by this petitioner u/s. 482 of the Cr. P. C. , this Court not only quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 702/99, (Original No. 1402/98), in the Court of C. J. M. , Katni, for offences punishable u/ss. 498-A, 120-B, 406, 419 and 120 so also u/s. 506, Part II of the I. P. C. , but was further pleased to direct that for the misbehaviour of father of non-applicant, during the aforesaid Court proceedings in Civil Suit No. 21-A/99, marked as Annexure F, which at that time was pending in the Court of Xth Addl. Distt. Judge, Jabalpur, M. C. C. be registered and he be noticed as to why he may not be punished for alleged contempt of trial Court. The Court was further pleased to direct that the matter be reported to the State Bar Council for taking suitable action in respect of alleged misconduct of non-applicant's father. ( 6 ) IT is also stated on behalf of the petitioner that on account of non-availability of counsel, due to violent behaviour of non-applicant's father, the application moved u/s. 127 of the Cr. P. C. , seeking enhancement of maintenance, also stood disposed of ex parte and the father of non-applicant is writing letters to the employer of the petitioner, in filthy language, requesting him to transfer the petitioner to Jabalpur. ( 7 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the non-applicant that Katni is a district place, therefore, this allegation of the petitioner is not correct that on account of any sort of threat or apprehension, the services of the counsel are not available to the petitioner at Katni. It is also submitted on behalf of non-applicant that Advocates are not cowards and hence, the petitioner may take the services of any counsel practicing at Jabalpur, in case the counsel of his choice is not available at Katni. It is also submitted on behalf of non-applicant that Advocates are not cowards and hence, the petitioner may take the services of any counsel practicing at Jabalpur, in case the counsel of his choice is not available at Katni. Lastly, it is submitted on behalf of non-applicant that with an intent to harass the non-applicant and the members of her family, the petitioner seeks transfer of execution case from Katni to Jabalpur. ( 8 ) SINCE every party has a right of hearing of his case, in an atmosphere free from fear and tension, hence, on consideration of all the aforesaid facts in totality, it appears to be just and proper that M. J. C. No. 4/2002, pending in the Court of C. J. M. , Katni, is transferred to Jabalpur. It is not being disputed that respondent's-father, Shri Mahendra Chanpuria is practicing at Jabalpur also. ( 9 ) THUS, this petition succeeds and it is directed that the M. J. C. No. 4/2002, pending in the Court of C. J. M. , Katni, is withdrawn from his Court and transferred to the Court of C. J. M. , Jabalpur, for disposal according to law. The parties are directed to appear in the Court of C. J. M. , Jabalpur, on 5th September, 2002. A copy of this order be sent to both of these Courts. C. J. M. , Katni, shall forthwith transmit the record of M. J. C. No. 4/2002, to the Court of C. J. M. , Jabalpur. Petition allowed. .