AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 344 wordsG. Satapathy, J
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
This is an application U/S 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short the 8Code9) by the petitioner seeking for transfer of D.V. Misc. Case No. 339 of 2017 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Jagatsinghpur to the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara on the grounds that the petitioner is a labourer and he would face inconvenience to attend the Court at Jagatsinghpur by coming from Kendrapara where another criminal case is pending between the parties.
In the course of hearing, Mr. P.C. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a labourer by occupation and the opposite party in this case is his wife, who has filed a criminal case against the petitioner at Kendrapara. Since the petitioner is the resident of Kendrapara and the parties were earlier residing there, but by citing the address of some of her relative, the Opposite Party has filed the aforesaid D.V. Misc. Case and the petitioner being unable to come to Jagatsinghpur, the D.V. Misc. Case may kindly be transferred to the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara. None appears for the O.P-wife.
Admittedly, the petitioner has sought for the transfer of D.V. Misc. Case No. 339 of 2017 which is a proceeding under P.W.D.V. Act, 2005 and the statutory requirement for disposal of such case is 60 days from the date of first hearing, but in the present case, the transfer application is of the year 2017 and thereby, the very objective of the aforesaid Act which is a beneficial legislation has been frustrated.
In the aforesaid situation and circumstance, this Court is not inclined to entertain the transfer application merely on the ground of inconvenience of the Petitioner.
In the result, the transfer application stands dismissed, but in the circumstance there is no order as to costs. The Court in seisin of the case is, however, requested to follow the statutory requirement of the P.W.D.V. Act for disposal of the case.
…………………………..