1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 8656 OF 2017(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Sunitha Motwani
Age 50 years,
W/o Amitabh Sinha,
F-1801, Ajmera Infinity
Neeladri Road, Electronic City -1
Bengaluru – 560 100.
2. Karthickeya( @ Kaalanjay Sinha)
Age 14 years,
S/O Amitabh Sinha
Bengaluru – 560 100.
Shall be represented by Mother
Sunitha Motwani.
… Petitioners
(By Smt. Sunita Motwani, Party-In-Person)
AND:
1. Amitabh Sinha
Age 40 years,
S/o Shri Late Maheshwari Charan Sinha,
2
1133 Grogans Mill Drive,
Cary, North Carolina – 27519
United States.
Or at, House No.179, Tiwaripur
1st Post Adarsh Nagar,
Sewans Tannery,
Kanpur – 208010.
2. The Sheristadar,
Hon’ble ACJM Court,
Bengaluru – Rural
Magistrate Court Complex,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru – 560 009.
… Respondents
(By Shri Sandeep Hegde, Advocate)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution Of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by
the petitoner appearing party-in-person praying for grant of
transfer of case from the court of I Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other
competent Court (Sessions court) where the pending branch is
not the same and directions for fair and impartial trials in cc no.
3357/2016 and criminal misc.573/2015
This Writ Petition having been heard and reserved on
18.04.2017 and coming on for pronouncement of Judgment this
day, ANAND BYRAREDDY, J., delivered the following:-
3
ORDER
Heard the party-in-person and the learned advocate for
the respondent.
2. It transpires that, the present petitioner, Smt. Sunitha
Motwani is fighting her battle, as party in person, for herself
and her son aged about 14, against her husband, who was a
resident of the United States of America and who is said to
have deserted her and her son, when he was aged 4. And since
then, she has been living in India and is said to be at the mercy
of her relatives for her livelihood. With much difficulty and
struggle, she has been able to secure her husband’s presence
before the Court. The two matters in Criminal Misc. 573/2015
and CC No. 3357/2016 were transferred from the Court of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Court of I Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural.
3. It transpires that the petitioner is conducting her case
without the assistance of a Counsel and when she was tendering
4
evidence from the witness box, she was not able to follow as to
what was happening, since the proceedings were conducted in
the Kannada Language, of which she is not familiar. There was
no translator provided to assist her. It is the complaint of the
petitioner that, the Counsel appearing for her husband was
intensively aggressive and was allowed to browbeat the
petitioner, and he is said to have insisted on posing questions in
the Kannada language, inspite of the petitioner pleading that she
did not follow the language.
4. It is also her case that she had produced certain
electronic evidence in accordance with the law, namely, in due
compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1892, which
according to her was openly tampered with by the respondent’s
Counsel. At a point of time, it is her complaint that the
Presiding Officer also appeared to be irritated with her presence
and when the petitioner protested as to the manner in which the
proceedings were being conducted, the Presiding Officer is said
5
to have expressed that he has no objection if the case is
transferred to some other Court.
5. Therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was
requested to provide information as to any other Court which
would not be averse to conducting the case in the language
understood by the petitioner and which is in a position to
control the proceedings and not to allow the Counsel to
browbeat the petitioner, who is a woman estranged from her
husband seeking justice, which the husband has resisted with all
his might.
It transpires that the petitioner is also not being provided
with maintenance that has been ordered by the Court and she
faces innumerable difficulties in getting through the procedure
and seeking appropriate relief at every stage.
6. In an Order by this Court, dated 4.4.2017 it was
observed that, given the pressure of work and the atmosphere
that prevails in the Court of the Magistrate, it would be
necessary to treat this particular petitioner with some concern
6
and therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was requested to
indicate as to which other Court, the case could be transferred
to. In the meanwhile, the further proceedings in Criminal
Misc.573/2015 and CC No.3357/2016 pending before the I
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural, were
stayed.
7. In response by a letter dated 12.4.2017, the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, has left it to this Court to decide on
the choice of the Court. Accordingly, the two cases pending
before the Court of the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bangalore Rural, namely, Criminal Misc. 573/2015 filed under
Sections 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 and CC No. 3357/2016 under Section 498A
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, shall stand transferred to the
Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
8. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is requested to
preferably conduct the further proceedings in-camera and
ensure it is done on a day-to-day basis as far as possible and
7
expedite the matter. The Court below need not take a strict view
of the manner in which the petitioner endeavours to follow
procedure and shall use its discretion liberally, as the main
object of any Court is to arrive at the truth and the manner in
which it is done can be flexible.
This petition is disposed of in terms as above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nv/ak*
