Narayan Mishra vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Another

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present petition is maintained by the petitioner, who is husband of respondent No. 2, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of the case,

which is maintained by respondent No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., from the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District

Shimla, H.P., to the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.

As per the petitioner, he is blind and permanent resident of District Kangra. Respondent No. 2 brusquely made to live with the petitioner for six

months at Nurpur with an objective to grab money. During May, 2013, respondent No. 2 showed empathy and sympathy that she will take care of the

petitioner, but in the month of July, 2013, she deserted the petitioner and came to Shilaroo and promised to join his company if he gets his transfer done

to Theog. Somehow, the petitioner got himself transferred to Theog, however, respondent No. 2 harassed him. She lived with the petitioner for about

6-7 days and again deserted him. Respondent No. 2 at times used to come to the petitioner for money.

As there was no one to take care of the petitioner, so in April, 2015, he got himself transferred to Nurpur and respondent No. 2 did not turn up, as she

started living with her children born out of her previous wedlock. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 maintained a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

against the petitioner in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., with a sole motive to fetch money from

the petitioner. The petitioner has also maintained a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, at Nurpur. In the above backdrop, the

petitioner has prayed that the petition be allowed and the case filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., titled as Asha Devi vs. Narayan

Mishra, which is pending adjudication in the Court of Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., be transferred to the

Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P.

Heard. The learned Legal Aid Counsel has argued that the petitioner is not in a position to travel all the way from Nurpur to Theog and attend the

Court, so the case filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. be transferred from the Court of learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. On the

other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1/State has argued that the petitioner is doing his job and

earlier also he used to attend the Court at Theog, so there is no merit in the petition and the same be dismissed. The learned vice counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No. 2 has argued that respondent no. 2 is a very poor lady and she is unable to travel from Theog to Nurpur for attend the Court,

as she is having a small child. He has further argued that due to poverty, respondent No. 2 is not in a position to bear the travel expenses. He has

argued that keeping in view the fact that respondent No. 2 is a poor lady having a small child and also considering the fact that earlier the petitioner

used to travel to attend the Court at Theog and is a man of means, as he is doing a job, the petition be dismissed.

After taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is doing job and earlier he used to travel from Nurpur to Theog in order to attend the Court

at Theog and also considering the fact that respondent No. 2 is a poor rustic lady having a child and is being maintained by her poor parents, this Court

finds there is no merit in the petition. This Court has also considered the fact that in the age of technology in case the petitioner so needs, he can

always take the help of video conferencing and make the appropriate request to the learned Court for recording his statement.

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is devoid of merit, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending

application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.