Gurdev Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THE Petitioners, Anital, Sheela, M.B. Mehtab and Ashok, who have been arrayed as accused in Criminal Complaint No. 58 dated 3.2.2010 titled as Anil Kumar v. Anita and Ors. under Sections 323, 379, 392, 427, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, pending in the Court of JMIC, Amritsar, have filed this petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the transfer of the same to some Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. They have contended therein that Petitioner No. 1 got lodged FIR No. 183 dated 4.6.2008 under Sections 406 and 498 -A IPC in Police Station Division No. 6, Jalandhar, against the Respondent, in which the challan has already been presented before the Court at Jalandhar. Petitioner No. 1 also filed an application under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure for an order directing the Respondent to pay maintenance to her, which was decided in her favour, vide order dated 31.8.2010 and she was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per month and her minor daughter was allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ - per month, but the Respondent failed to pay the same and as such, she moved Execution Application before JMIC, Jalandhar, in which a notice has already been issued to the Respondent. That application is also pending before the Court at Jalandhar. In order to harass and humiliate them, the Respondent has lodged the above said totally false and frivolous complaint against them. He had also filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the restitution of conjugal rights and a petition under Sections 24 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in the Court of District Judge, Jalandhar, and those were got dismissed. He is practising as an Advocate at Amritsar, and the complaint has been filed frivolously to teach a lesson to them. There is every chance that they would be harassed, in case they visit the Court at Amritsar. It is not safe for them to attend the Court at that place as the Respondent is giving threats that in case they would come to Amritsar to attend the hearing, they would face dire consequences. Moreover, there is financial constraint for Petitioner No. 1 to attend the Court at that place.
(3.) IN the reply filed by the Respondent, he controverted the allegations levelled against him. He pleaded therein that the FIR, so lodged by Petitioner No. 1, is false and was registered by the police under the influence of the Petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 was running a beauty parlour before her marriage in the house of her parents and even after the marriage, she left the matrimonial home and started that business. An ex parte maintenance order was obtained by her and he being a junior Advocate is not in a position to pay that maintenance allowance to her. She is already appearing in the Court at Amritsar through her counsel Sh. Mandeep Arora, Advocate. He prayed for the dismissal of the petition.;