ADURU SRIDEVI ALIAS PARVATHI Vs. ADURU GANESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking transfer of O.P.No. 3/2001 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, on the ground that the petitioner has no means to travel all the way from Kavali to Bapatla (sic. from Bapatla to Kavali) for attending every hearing of the case, and also on the ground that a criminal case in C.C.No. 13/2000, based on a report given by her against the respondent under Section 498-A IPC, is pending in the court of the Magistrate at Bapatla, and that she also filed a petition in M.C.No. 7/2002 for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla.

(2.) The case of the respondent is that after the petitioner lodged a complaint against him under Section 498-A IPC, he filed a. petition before the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail, and in pursuance of the orders passed therein, when he went to the court at Bapatla to surrender himself before the court, and after he was released on bail on surrender and was coming out, he was attacked by the brothers and relations of the petitioner, and so, he gave a sworn statement before the learned Magistrate, and the learned Magistrate ordered investigation by police, which is still pending, and if the case is transferred to Bapatla, he would be greatly inconvenienced. He undertook to meet the expenses of not only the petitioner but also of an attendant to escort the petitioner to the court at Kavali from Bapatla.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since two cases i.e., C.C.No. 13/2000, under Section 498-A IPC, registered on the complaint given by the petitioner, and M.C.No. 7/2002 filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance, are pending in the courts at Bapatla, if the O.P. is transferred from Kavali to the court at Bapatla, respondent would not be inconvenienced, and, on the other hand, it is very difficult for the petitioner, who is a lady, to travel all the way from Bapatla to Kavali, and so, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, the O.P. be transferred from Kavali to Bapatla. He also contended that as the brother of the respondent is a practising Advocate at Kavali, none of the Senior or Junior Advocates, at Kavali are accepting the brief of the petitioner, and so the petitioner had to engage a relatively Junior Advocate and to enable the petitioner hiring the services of a local Senior Counsel and conduct her defence it is necessary to transfer the OP to Bapatla. He relied on Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel. Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, and Archana Singh v. Alok Pratap Singh in support of his said contentions.