- (1.) The petitioner is seeking transfer of the petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., pending before the Family Court at Sonepat. The petitioner is a practising lawyer at Delhi. His wife has filed a petition seeking maintenance. He seeks transfer on the ground that he was threatened by the lawyers representing the wife when he went to attend the Court hearing in the FIR case. He was threatened by lawyer representing the wife and he was afraid of attending the Courts at Sonepat and the respondents were also creating pressure upon the Court. The petitioner had pleaded that he was practising at Delhi. He had pleaded that he had aged parents and his father was bed ridden and no good lawyer would represent him before the Courts at Sonepat on account of the influence exercised by the wife and her family. The petitioner had further pleaded that the uncle of the respondent was influential and the complainant had his support.
(2.) The petitioner had also pleaded that he had filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court and ex parte interim order was passed in his favour but later it was dismissed on 13.12.2013 but liberty was granted to approach the High Court. The petitioner had referred to a number of authorities in his petition which need not detain us here. Notice was given to the respondent. The respondent in her reply had pleaded that the petition was vexatious, fabricated and contained frivolous allegations with a view to cause harassment. It was pleaded that the petition was liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. It was pleaded that the petitioner had made false allegations that he was threatened by the complainant's counsel and wrong plea had been taken that they were creating any pressure on the Court. It was pleaded that transfer petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. It was pleaded that petitioner was a lawyer and known to other advocates and there was no question of creating pressure and since he was travelling from one city to another to attend cases, therefore, he could also attend his own case and he was creating pressure on her being a lawyer and belonged to an influential family.
(3.) The petitioner had filed a rejoinder. I have heard both the sides. The petitioner had contended that his sister was arrested and bail was allowed on 02.03.2013 in the FIR case and though bonds were furnished on 04.03.2013, she could be released only on 07.03.2013. He had further contended that his father was bed ridden and his brother was schizophrenic and his mother was diabetic and when he had gone to attend the Court hearing, he was heckled and he had made a statement in the Court. The petitioner had referred to Annexure P-7. The petitioner further submitted that he had approached the Supreme Court for transfer of the case to some other State but the petition was dismissed, however, the observations made therein were important. He had referred to Annexure P10 to P12. The petitioner had submitted that the Apex Court had observed that they could have passed an order for transfer of the case to another Court in Haryana but since the complainant had not been impleaded, therefore, the order could not be passed. The petitioner states that he had made the complainant as a party but there was an objection and therefore, he had to make the necessary amendments.;