SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Rekha @ Smitha W/O Jeetendra … vs Jeetendra Gouda S/O Pampana Gouda on 23 September, 2011

Karnataka High Court Smt. Rekha @ Smitha W/O Jeetendra … vs Jeetendra Gouda S/O Pampana Gouda on 23 September, 2011Author: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT’AKAf.. g V’ CIRCUIT BENCH AT:DHA’R.W1D it _ Dated this the 23*” day of:S¢ep:t_erdber.20.3: 1 BeFor–e V

THE HON’BLE MR.JUsTICE’ANAND« BYRAREDDY cnnnna1Egguonamziogzs/zoimt”V

BETWEEN: ‘” G “””‘”

snn.Rekha@@sunna,wrj} ,,

W/o. Jeetendr’a’G_ouda,

Age: 29 years’, 4O?:vG¢;–‘_Hvouseho1d– R/o Doopda11i:;”‘T_q.Kudaiggi,G’~..,_– ” Dist. BVe1e1ary,.VANoa.:.;v_at Be].a1a”ge.ri, V Tq. Cljrannaegirij Dist. _Da§/anagere. …Petitioner (By Sri.A–B.V.So–maf§u_r,”–Ad»v’o–eate) ADJD: ‘._V. , 3″»;

1. Sideetendra Gouda,

o Pamparia .G__o_u.da,

V Age 2 “years,

‘ “Qecv:_ ‘Agr«i_C’u1_ture.

2 .__ePam_p–aria g’GVQ.uda,

S/0 Bfiaraima Gouda,

=A_ge;_ >5 5 years,


A Smt. Deviramrna,

” -_W’/o Pampana Gouda,

Age: 52 years,

Occ: Agriculture.


. Kotresh Gouda,

S/o Pampana Gouda,

Age: 34 years,

Occ: Agriculture.

Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are V

R/o Doopdalli, Tq. Kuda1gi;~.__

Dist. Bellary.

. Smt. Saraswati,

. Sornashekhai’~..F§edd=_y, g

W/o Somashekhar ;_» ” ‘ .

Occ: household wor1V<,~. _ if A

S/o Chanr’;vab%iai_s_a.p’pa,__&

Age: 35iyear”s,, ”

Both”oetitioner3fNo.fS*and We

R/ o._ASa.r’at.i “/ii1fatge,_b’l”qV7 “Kud’a1gi, Dist:uBe’}1ary, ‘ C’ ” “

. The Statetiof Kar’nat–a.ka,i

Rep. by Ko_ttur.;–Po1’ice””

Through PP”

‘ ”Hi’gh’VCo–u&rt of iK’a”r’nataka, » -.DgharwAadu.’*–. __ …Respondents Advocate for R1 to R6

A Sri.V.Ana.nCd K.Nava1girnath, HCGP for R7) “This criminal petition is filed under Section 407 of A C1*..P.C.”‘seeking that the said C.C.No.147/2010 pending ” the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) 85 JMFC Court, Kudlagi be transferred to the JMFC Court, Channagiri or é

JMFC Court at Davanagere which is more”~co:n..Ve’nie–nt to” the both the parties.

This Criminal petition CominigV_oii–i_1A”.or ordpiers the Court made the following:-.._. i 2 A’ ‘ ,,_oRDER]–*,

Heard the,_1earned.._oo»un–seV1 ‘petitioner and the respondefltfi; V ‘

2. win: p¢Eni¢fiet is the iegany xvedded xvfie of respondent._N.o f<‘espo.i_ndenit Nos.2 and 3 are the parents oftiirespondemt”-.No._1 .– iiéespondent No.4 is the brother’of” Respondent No.5 is the sister of reisporidentii’-Noil and respondent No.6 is the of respondent no.5. It transpires that the ~a’12.d”:..respondent No.1 are estranged, having togethper after their marriage for six months. The reason for estrangement is that there was constant harassment to the petitioner and there was constant “demands for dowry and, therefore, unable to bear the 3


torment, the petitioner has lodged a complain’t*«aga_ins_tl the respondents before the jurisdictional._:fpo’l–i:ce<_ Kottur on 3.10.2009 for the>un_der.l Section 498A read with Section 34¢” the Pleniai Code, 1860 and Sections lii’3u:”and 4.455 ljowry Prohibition Act, 1961,’: offderriand for dowry and the ill-treatment’ registered before the Jl,31’Cli3;§éjVgévl Channagiri, in the first. same was withdrawn on point of time and

she returii.ed to>.h~er”‘vrnatrimonial home. However, the attitude of’resp.or;-.dents~*”did not change even thereafter ~._an’?lj’ii’}1arassmenilt ‘a=n–didemands for dowry continued. On gsuch acts on the part of the respondents yet another in Crime No.94/2009 alleging the very safmev”offences before the Judicial Magistrate First .,VVKudlagi, which is registered as C.C.No.l47/2010 “aindjthe same is pending before the said Civil Judge 6



(Sr.Dn.) and JMFC and the matter is evidence.

3. It is the case of the p’ respondents want to ensure that the cas’eA’do’esr.’n*~ott ~. progress and are threateni’ng'”‘e–the .petition’geri’jandiher V family members as well. as p.the*:i§vitn”e.ssesiiin*support of her case, that they woluldifaiceEdire:c’oi_:.sveciuences, if any of them dared v’stti«piVport of the case of the required to travel from Belalageri tal”u1<.,v”lwhere she is residing with which is about 120 kms.

without ar;aydd.ireic.t rn_ea.n..s of transport which entails the petitiponer to “=sta_y_v overnight at Davanagere and ‘th’erea.fter ‘toii”p.roceed to Kudlagi on every occasion, this would apply insofar as the witnesses in support of hericaise are concerned and, therefore, the petitioner, her._ parents and her supporters are living under ‘constant fear of attack by the respondents and their g

supporters and, it is in that background, petition is filed seeking transfer of the case: Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) andJM’FC,’l–.Ku;dl_ag«i,_ Court of JMFC, Channagiri, inifzordier petitioner to prosecute herbage without_fea’r and to V ensure a fair trial.

4. The learned….,c’oun’s.el»,_ fo’r_ respondents seriously ob}°evctsa’t’l’tyo .th.el.slame ‘avndfiwould submit that respondents a_~re’*~’a?1l fr_o«m”~~.a”hurn.b’le background and especial’lyevt.he5father a’ngd«.mother”iof respondent No.1 are aged and areCuln’aib1»e_i’tof”plaice the petitioner and her family members’ .anA;l”a_riy other witnesses under any kind,of__ithreat;””the____allegations are exaggerated; they do ‘not,haveathe”support of any one in order to attack and c–ar’ry’ threat against the petitioner and others as ‘V difficulty expressed by the petitioner as to ift’hie–,inclonvenience of travelling merelv 120 kms, is ‘exaggerated. The transport facilities are available and, S

therefore, it is only in order to ensure that respoi=:-dents are placed in a more disadvantageous position thlat”tih:e”–e ‘ present petition is filed and th.ere._is no V consideration of the same.

respondents are all law abiding citizlenps tandiivvsome of , * them are aged and therefore,7t_here isinolwarfrant for interference.

5. In th.e«ig:ViV_-‘en [thelfEictsi°a1j}<ifcilprcilumstances and the long dispute between the

PartieS”,”i”t” matter be transferred to a llCourlt Belalgeri, the place of residencelllioaf ‘petitione1z.ll~’ii’ and Doopdalli, the place of residence __of relspvondents and, therefore, the learned ‘QV0:unS€1VVlf0:IiV’,Eh”€ petitioner as well as the respondents v’vo.u*lid ljthlat Harapanahalli is about 45 Kms. from j the’ residence of petitioner and 65 Kms. from the lgresi-dence of respondents, which would be an inappropriate compromise between the parties as to the 3

distance which each of them would require to travel in order to attend the proceedings and it would the fear under which the petitioner suffers. 2 Accordingly, the petition isfialloweid.i’Theiiinatter directed to be transferred to the-_iCourt’:”o.fv.JVud_iLciai Magistrate First Class, Hiai-aipanahalliiggiii’iforihi further prosecution, from the stage at whi–cph_ii’t_is pending.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation