Nirupama Pradhan & Another vs Gokulananda Sahu

M.S. Sahoo, J

The petition under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-wife and her minor daughter represented through the mother guardian, seeking transfer of Criminal Proceeding No.100 of 2017 from the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Anugul. The said Criminal Proceeding No.100 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar has been filed by the petitioner herself under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance against the husband who is the opposite party in the present petition.

On being specifically asked as to the reasons of the wife seeking for transfer of the petition which she has herself filed at Bhubaneswar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner-wife was staying at Bhubaneswar, therefore, she had filed the petition at Bhubaneswar and now since she has shifted her place of residence to Anugul, she would like to prosecute the matter at Anugul not at Bhubaneswar.

On such proposition, on being asked whether there is any provision of law providing that the petitioner can file the case and seek again transfer of the self-same case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not referred to any particular provision, apart from stating that convenience of the parties is of the paramount importance, though the fact remains that the petitioner herself has filed a petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., now she wants to get it transferred to another court.

It is further submitted that principles of natural justice requires that both the parties are to be heard in a particular petition like that of petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. On being asked that whether there has been any situation where the petitioner has not been heard in the proceeding, i.e. Criminal Proceeding No.100 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no such situation, but it would be convenient for the opposite party, who is her husband to appear if the case is transferred to Anugul.

In the considered opinion on this Court, such a contention/prayer on behalf of the petitioner regarding convenience of the opposite party against whom she has filed the case at Bhubaneswar is of no relevance as far as the present petition under Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as withdrawn..

………………………