Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 230 (ORI)

Chinmayee Mitra v. Gautam Mitra

2005-04-05

R.N.BISWAL

body2005
JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to transfer Criminal Proceeding No.241 of 2000 pending in the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhadrak. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that she married the opp.party on 11.5.1999 as per Hindu rites and their Caste custom in her parental house at Bhadrak. On demand, made by the opp.party, his parents and cousin sister, Anjali Roy, the family members of the petitioner besides giving house-hold articles gave them cash of Rs.85,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 13 Tolas. After marriage the parties lived as husband and wife in the house of the opp.party at Kazi Bazar, Cuttack. Some time thereafter the opp.party along with his parents and cousin sister Anjali insist¬ed the petitioner to bring a Hero Honda motor cycle from her parents towards dowry. When she refused to it, they all started ill-treating her and lastly on 25.9.1999 drove her out from the matrimonial home. As per the petition since then she has been living at her parental house at Bhadrak. 3. In the meantime the opp.party filed C.P. No.109 of 2000 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the petitioner before the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. Thereafter the petitioner filed two petitions-one under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance and another for return of the dowry articles against the opp.party, in Criminal Proceeding No.241 of 2000 and C.P. No.387 of 2002 respectively, before the same Court. The petitioner resides at Bhadrak at a distance of 110 K.Ms. from Cuttack. She has been spending a lot to come down from Bhadrak to Cuttack to attend all the three cases. Hence the Petition. 4. Opp.Party in his counter affidavit admitted his mar¬riage with the petitioner, but denied the allegation that he drove her out from the matrimonial home for non-payment of dowry. According to him, the petitioner left the matrimonial home in his absence without any reasonable cause and in spite of his best efforts, she did not return back. So he had to file a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act in C.P. No.109 of 2000 before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for restitution of conjugal right. It is his further case that the petitioner resides at Kazi Bazar, Cuttack and not at Bhadrak. So he had to file a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act in C.P. No.109 of 2000 before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for restitution of conjugal right. It is his further case that the petitioner resides at Kazi Bazar, Cuttack and not at Bhadrak. In her written statement filed in C.P. Nos.109 of 2000 and 387 of 2002 she has described herself to be a resident of Kazi Bazar, Cuttack. He further stated that he apprehends danger to his life if he is required to go to Bhadrak in the event the case is transferred there. Moreover, Criminal Proceeding No.241 of 2000 and C.P. No. 387 of 2002 being inter linked, the learned Judge Family Court has directed to hear both the proceedings analogously. If C.P. No.241 of 2000 is trans¬ferred to Bhadrak, there may be conflicting decisions in the two cases. On all these grounds the opp.party prays to reject the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing in her parent’s house at Bhadrak. She has been facing much hardship both physically and financially by coming down from Bhadrak to Cuttack to attend the cases in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. So for convenience of the petitioner, the wife, the case should be transferred to Bhadrak. In support of his submission he relied on the decision Sumita Singh v.Kumar Sanjay and another; AIR 2002 SC 396 . 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the opp.party submits that the petitioner has initiated the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. In fact she resides at Cuttack, but to harass the opp.party she has filed the petition for transfer. He further submits that Family Courts have been established in the State for speedy disposal of matrimonial cases. If Criminal Proceeding No.241 of 2000 is transferred to the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak, there would be delay in disposal of the case. Moreover, C.P. Nos.109 of 2000 and 241 of 2000 have been ordered to be heard analogously by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. If Criminal Proceeding No.241 of 2000 is transferred to the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak, there may arise two conflicting decisions. So he prays to reject the petition. 7. In the decision Sumita Singh (supra) the husband filed the suit against the wife in Ara, Bhojpur. If Criminal Proceeding No.241 of 2000 is transferred to the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhadrak, there may arise two conflicting decisions. So he prays to reject the petition. 7. In the decision Sumita Singh (supra) the husband filed the suit against the wife in Ara, Bhojpur. Since the wife was residing at Delhi, which is at a distance of 1100 K.Ms. from Ara, she filed a petition for transfer of the case to Delhi. Under such circumstances the case was allowed to be transferred. But in the present case the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the wife against the husband at Cuttack. The distance between Bhadrak and Cuttack is only 110 K.Ms. So the decision cited above is of no help to the petitioner. The other two deci¬sions cited on her behalf would not be applicable to the present case. In her counter in C.P. Nos.109 of 2000 and 387 of 2002 the petitioner has described herself as a resident of Cuttack. Now she cannot fall back from her statements. Again, if Criminal Pro¬ceeding No.241 of 2000 is transferred to Bhadrak and heard by the S.D.J.M. and the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack hears C.P. No.109 of 2000, conflicting decisions may arise therein. Moreover, it may take a longer time for the S.D.J.M., Bhadrak to dispose of the case. Furthermore, two other cases between the parties are pending before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. 8. Under such circumstances the petition deserves to be rejected. Criminal Proceeding No.241 of 2000 has been filed in the year 2000. In the meantime four years has already been elapsed. So the Judge, Family Court shall dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly the TRPCRL is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. TRPCRL dismissed.