M.PRADEEP Vs. K.ANUPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arjun Rego, learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for respondent No.1 is absent. Order sheet dtd. 5/3/2022, 25/3/2022, 24/5/2022 and 21/6/2022 show that counsel for respondent No.1 is continuously absent.

(2.) This is a petition under Sec. 407 of Cr.P.C., filed by respondent No.1 in a proceeding under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violation Act, 2005 (' DV Act ' for short) registered as Crl.Misc.No.541/2019 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar. The petitioner has sought transfer of the said case to any of the jurisdictional courts in Bengaluru.

(3.) It is stated in the petition that after the marriage of the petitioner with the first respondent on 5/9/2015, the first respondent came over to Bengaluru to live with the petitioner. She is actually not a permanent resident of Bidar. Intentionally she instituted the proceeding in the court at Bidar to cause inconvenience to the petitioner. The first respondent is already attending the courts in Bengaluru in connection with two cases, namely, in C.C.No.53398/2020, where she is a complainant and another being C.C.No.55275/2021, where she is an accused. These two cases are pending and she is regularly appearing.