SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Sunitha Motwani vs Amitabh Sinha on 21 April, 2017

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*

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