V SANTHOSH KUMAR Vs. ANASUYA ALIAS LATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court by order dated 17-3-2005 dismissed the Transfer Criminal Petition No.54 of 2005 on merits. The present miscellaneous petition is filed to set aside the said order.

(2.) There are cases and counter cases between the petitioner and the first respondent, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner. Against the petitioner, the first respondent herein filed O.P. No.373 of 2002 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner herein filed O.P.No.475 of 2003 against first respondent for divorce. Both the cases were filed before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Be it also noted that the first respondent had earlier filed Maintenance Case under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) being M.C.No.222 of 2002 on the file of the Family Court, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner herein filed Tr. Crl. P No.54 of 2005 before this Court on 9-3-2005 praying to transfer all the three cases to Family Court, Secunderabad. He alleged in his affidavit accompanying the said transfer petition, that he, his mother and sisters are in a state of shock by reason of the conduct of the first respondent that he had no means to travel to Visakhapatnam and that he has to take care of his mother and sisters.

(3.) The transfer criminal miscellaneous petition was originally listed before me on 14-3-2005. The petitioner appearing through party-in-person was absent. His name was called by the Court Attender (orderly) loudly in the corridor of the Court, in vain. Therefore, this Court passed the following order on 14-3-2005. Mr. V. Santosh Kumar, party-in-person is absent. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, Sri Jayanthi S.C. Shaker, submits that the petitioner is repeatedly filing the applications before this Court as well as other Courts in A.P. and absenting himself Therefore, office is directed to issue urgent notice to the petitioner and send the same through the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, returnable by 17-3-2005 making it clear that if the petitioner does not appear either in person or by a duly instructed Counsel, the Court would initiate appropriate proceedings for contempt of Court.