Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1263 (MP)

Sanjay Gaur v. Richa Gour@ Richa Singh

2013-10-21

N.K.Gupta

body2013
ORDER 1. The applicant has moved the present application under section 407 of CrPC to get the MJC No.179/2011 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa filed under section 125 of CrPC transferred to the Court of any other District. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the wife of the applicant, who has filed an application under section 125 of CrPC before the Family Court, Rewa to get the maintenance. The respondent took a plea that the applicant kept a woman with him, and therefore she could not reside with the applicant. In reply the applicant has submitted that a divorce took place in the year 2003 between the parties, however the respondent had filed an appeal before the Bombay High Court Bench at Nagpur. Actually the respondent was residing with her parents since the year 1998 and she is an earning member. Being a doctor, she has a good job and no maintenance is required by her. However, an application under section 125 of CrPC was filed only to harass the applicant. 3. At present the applicant has moved the present application under section 407 of CrPC on the ground that the father of the respondent is a renowned Advocate at Rewa, and therefore no advocate of District Bar Association, Rewa is ready to proceed with the case for the applicant, and therefore it is prayed that the case which is pending before the Court below may be transferred to the Court of any other district. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is impossible for the applicant to contest the case at Rewa, because no local advocate is ready to accept his brief or to assist the counsel, who is coming from Jabalpur or Nagpur to contest the case. Under such circumstances, it is impossible for the applicant to contest the matter at Rewa, whereas the respondent is an earning person and she is not entitled to get any maintenance. Under such circumstances, it is impossible for the applicant to contest the matter at Rewa, whereas the respondent is an earning person and she is not entitled to get any maintenance. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed his reliance upon the order passed by Hon’ble the apex Court in the case of “Surendra Pratap Singh v. State of UP” [(2010) 9 SCC 475] and the orders passed by the Single Benches of this Court in the cases of “Bhavna v. State of MP” [1998 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 152 = 1998(1) MPLJ 297 ] and “Laxmi Narayan Khati v. State of MP” [ 2005(3) MPLJ 381 ]. It is also submitted that the applicant is ready to bear the expenses of the respondent for visiting from Rewa to that place where the case would be transferred. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the application. He has submitted that being a woman the respondent should not be caused any inconvenience. The respondent has also moved an application for vacating stay and the learned counsel for the respondent has invited attention of this Court to para 2 of that application. It is denied that being a senior lawyer, the father of the respondent would have any influence over the Presiding Officer at Rewa. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the present application filed by the applicant may be dismissed. 7. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the father of the respondent is a renowned advocate at Rewa. He cannot influence the Presiding Officer of the trial Court, but he can influence the advocate appearing for the applicant. If the advocates are not accepting the brief of the applicant, then it would be impossible for the applicant to contest the matter at Rewa. In the light of the orders passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Bhawna (supra) and in the case of Laxmi Narayan Khati (supra) if it is shown that if there is a reasonable apprehension that any of the party would not get a fair and impartial trial, then such case should be transferred. In the light of the orders passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Bhawna (supra) and in the case of Laxmi Narayan Khati (supra) if it is shown that if there is a reasonable apprehension that any of the party would not get a fair and impartial trial, then such case should be transferred. In the present case, the respondent can visit adjacent district of District Rewa and the applicant is ready to bear her expenses for her travelling from Rewa to that district, and therefore no inconvenience would be caused to the respondent if the case is transferred to the adjacent district. 8. On the other hand, if the case is not transferred, then the applicant may not get any impartial and fair trial. If he cannot get any legal aid, then certainly he cannot establish his objections before the trial Court. It is apparent that the respondent is a doctor by profession and it is possible that she is earning a maintenance herself. But it is for the applicant to establish that the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance from him, and therefore he should get an opportunity to establish his objections. 9. The allegations made by the applicant in the petition that there is possibility of mishandling with him, because the father of the respondent is a renowned advocate in criminal side and hence he has contacts with various criminals, cannot be accepted, because in the past the applicant visited Rewa for at least once and no any attack was done by any criminal upon him. However, looking to non-cooperation of the advocates at Rewa, it would be proper that the case may be transferred. 10. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present application filed by the applicant under section 407 of CrPC is hereby allowed. The MJC No.179/2011 pending before the Family Court, Rewa is hereby transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna for further trial. It is also made clear that transportation charges of the respondent as well as her advocate shall be born by the applicant for their travelling from Rewa to Satna on each and every date of hearing. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information with a direction that case file be sent to the CJM Satna so that further proceeding may take place. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information with a direction that case file be sent to the CJM Satna so that further proceeding may take place. A copy of this order be also sent to the CJM, Satna for information and compliance. Parties are directed to remain present before the CJM Satna on. .............