- (1.) BY way of these two above mentioned criminal miscellaneous applications, the petitioner husband had sought transfer of miscellaneous case no.8/2010 under section 125 Cr.P.C. and Cr. Case No.157/2009 under section 498A and 406 IPC pending before Gram Nyayalay/ACJM Dausa to some other court on the ground that the petitioner husband and his father are afraid to appear in the court because of some earlier incidents of assault by the family members of the respondent wife.
(2.) AFTER filing this transfer application an exparte ad interim order had also been obtained by the petitioner whereby recovery of maintenance amount was stayed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent wife submits that these transfer petitions are misconceived for two reasons - (i) that application seeking transfer of proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed on 16.11.2011 i.e. after final disposal of the misc case no.8/2010 on 16.5.2011 which has not been assailed till date. The petitioner has also not paid any maintenance to the respondent. The prayer has also been made to transfer Cr. Case NO.157/2009 filed u/s 498A and 406 IPC from the court of ACJM, Dausa to another court of the District, (ii) the ground for transfer is stated to be earlier assault by the family members of respondent wife. In order to substantiate this contention, the petitioner has filed the copy of FIR No.200/2011 registered on 14.9.2011. The allegation of petitioner was that on 12.9.2011 the respondent (wife's) family members had assaulted them and they had to lodge an FIR. This FIR lodged by petitioner Guddu reads as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... As is clear from above that the petitioner, despite having living spouse married some other girl named Aarti in the court and her family members assaulted him and not the family members of respondent Sona. Learned counsel for petitioner also relied on the order dated 24.9.2011 passed by learned Trial Court on their application seeking police protection to go home. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for respondent submitted that to create a ground for transfer the order on frivolous application had been obtained by them on 26.9.2011 on their back. Nothing of the sort had happened. The petitioner is simply harassing the respondent by not paying a single penny towards maintenance and by not appearing in the criminal case. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
(3.) SO far as present applications (38/2011 and 39/2011) are concerned, admittedly, they are misconceived because the proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. had been finally disposed on 16.5.2011 and therefore, no case of this nature was pending before the Gram Nyayalay at the time of filing of transfer application on 16.11.2011. It is not out of place that order for interim maintenance was passed on 2.1.2009, towards which only a meagre sum of Rs.3,000/- was paid to her and repeatedly the warrants for attachment were being issued. On account of ad interim exparte stay of further proceedings, respondent has not been able to get any maintenance as proceedings on her application filed u/s 125(3) Cr.P.C., are stayed. In the Cr. Case No.157/2009 for offence u/s 498A and 406 IPC, which was registered on 12.1.2009, the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court off and on and his bail bonds were forfeited. The record shows that on 4.10.2010 his bail bonds were forfeited and he was produced on 24.9.2011 after execution of warrant of arrest, whereafter application was filed for police protection. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioner, by not complying with the interim order dated 2.1.2009, has not paid monthly maintenance to respondent (wife) despite regular warrants of attachment and the criminal case registered in January could not proceed because of repeated forfeiture of petitioner's bail bonds. The petitioner has not made out any case for transfer of cr. case or proceedings u/s 125 (3) Cr.P.C. pending in the court of ACJM / Gram Nayalay to other court. ;