Saturday, August 3, 2013

married late 2010, 498a early 2012 !! Husband scr3ws own transfer case NOT appearing x times & NOT paying wife &15 month kid. Husband claims wife's uncles are lawyers in the same court and threatening him !! This MAY well be true. Wife's side says Husband HAS a bail and STILL not appearing. Now whom to believe ???

Husband scr3ws his own transfer case NOT appearing many times & NOT paying a penny to wife & 15 month kid. Husband claims wife's uncles are lawyers in the same court and threatening him !! This MAY well be true. Wife's side says Husband HAS a bail and STILL not appearing. Now whom to believe ??? 


Learning
******************
* men need to be careful and understand how the society views them
* on one hand they are viewed as rapist and dowry sheeters
* on the other hand they are viewed as providers (why didn't you pay a penny to your wife)
* so any married man walks a thin line .....a very very thin line IF he also into cases

* this seems to be a pathetic case where married in late 2010 , 498a in early 2012 the parties are already in the 498a ..bail..and run around stage
* there is also a 15 mnth kid
* husband has NOT appeared in court for at least 5 occasions and even charges NOT read out to him as he has NOT appeared. this is IN SPITE of the husband having a BAIL Since 13.1.2012 
* now he says the wife's uncles are advocates and so he has been threatened and hence NOT appeared
* probably that is true
* probably that is false
* but overall , all the non appearance scr3ws up husband's transfer case and the court rejects his transfer application when he tries to transfer the 498a case elsewhere ] 


   
Rajasthan High Court

Pavan Kumar Bhatia vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 10 January, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

O R D E R
 
S.B. CRIMINAL TRANSFER APPLICATION No.12/2012

Pavan Kumar Bhatia v/s State of Rajasthan & Anr.

DATE OF ORDER ::: 10.1.2013

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SMT. MEENA V. GOMBER

Shri Ravi Meena on behalf of

Shri Sanjay Sharma, for petitioner.

Shri N.R. Saran, Public Prosecutor.

Shri Veyankatesh Garg, for respondent No.2.

Petitioner husband has filed this transfer application u/s 407 read with section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of proceedings of criminal case bearing No.51/2012 arising out of FIR No.12/2012 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Ajmer, titled as State V/s Pawan Bhatia, for offences under sections 498A and 406 IPC pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Ajmer. 

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, the wife. 

In para no. 7 of the petition, the petitioner has alleged that Shri Naresh M. Chainani and Shri Deepak Chainani who are the uncles of respondent No.2 (wife), are practicing advocates in Ajmer and that they had threatened him on several times. The sole ground of transfer mentioned in the petition is that uncles of respondent No.2 have threatened him on several times, therefore, he is unable to appear before Ajmer court. This petition was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 stating that not even a single instance when he was threatened, has been mentioned in the petition. 

Moreover, according to him the parties got married in the end of 2010 and the case was lodged by the respondent wife in January, 2012 in which after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and his family members on 9.2.2012. Since 9.2.2012 the petitioner has not appeared even once before the court which is clear from the order-sheets dated 9.2.2012, 18.4.2012, 16.5.2012, 4.7.2012, 13.7.2012, 8.8.2012 and 22.8.2012. Exemption on all these hearings was sought on account whereof even the charge could not be read over to him. On one or the other pretext of leave or ill-health etc. the adjournments had been sought for the whole year. 

Since 13.1.2012 when the petitioner was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, one year has passed but even the accusation could not be read over to him. His argument is that the respondent No.2 is living with her parents along with her 15 months' old child for which the petitioner has not paid a single penny as maintenance and is trying to get the case transferred out of Ajmer so as to harass her. I have looked into the record, particularly; the order-sheets. The petitioner has not quoted a single instance when he had been threatened by the wife or any of the family members of respondent No.2. Just because her uncles are lawyers practicing at Ajmer court, it cannot be a ground for transfer of the criminal case, especially; when the lady along with the child is financially Dependant on her parents and when the petitioner has not bothered to even give a single penny to her and his son who are living at Ajmer with the respondent No.2's family. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I am not inclined to allow this petition for transfer to any court out of Ajmer district. The transfer petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to respondent No.2 on the next date failing which it would be recoverable in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear in person before the concerned court on 18.2.2013 so that the accusation may be read over to him and trial be expedited.

(Dr. MEENA V. GOMBER),J.

Chauhan/

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

(Raj Kumar Chauhan),

P




***

FOLLOW 
@ATMwithDick on twitter or 
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases ) 
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases


regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist