bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 1805 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1805 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 1805 OF 2007 Mrs.Bhavna Keshav Bachkar ... Petitioner v/s Keshav Limbaji Bachkar & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Vivek Salunke for the petitioner. Mr.Siddharth Karpe i/by Y.K.S.Legal for Resp.Nos.1 to 6. Smt.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the Resp.No.7 State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 16TH APRIL, 2008 16TH APRIL, 2008 16TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioner who is 22 years old, has sought maintenance from her husband - respondent No.1. She has also filed C.R.No.132 of 2007 against the respondents for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A chargesheet has been filed in this proceeding which is pending before the 45th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, Mumbai. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is residing with her parents at Nashik and is solely dependant on her father for the livelihood since respondent No.1 is not maintaining her. She has, 2 therefore, filed the present application contending that this Court should exercise its powers for transferring C.R.No.132 of 2007 which is now pending before the 45th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, Mumbai to any Court of competent jurisdiction in Nashik. Besides the fact that the petitioner is residing with her parents at Nashik, she has also stated that the respondent Nos.2 to 6 who are relatives of the respondent No.1 are also residing in Ahmednagar District which is closer to Nashik as compared to Mumbai. Respondent No.1 is working in Mumbai. 3. An offer has been made by the learned advocate for the respondents that the respondents would bear the cost of the petitioner’s travel to Mumbai and residence in Mumbai on each day of hearing. It is contended that the power under Section 407 should not be invoked only because it would be convenient for the petitioner. 4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates from either side, I am of the view that, it would be appropriate to transfer the proceedings which are now pending in the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Kurla, Mumbai to Nashik. This is because the petitioner would be required to come all the way to Mumbai on each day of hearing. Respondent Nos.2 3 to 6 who are respondents/accused in the present case are also residing closer to Nashik than to Mumbai. It would only be necessary for the first respondent to travel to Nashik which he can well do instead of offering to pay for the petitioner’s travel and residence in Mumbai. 5. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the criminal trial in C.R.No.132 of 2007 pending before the 45th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, Mumbai is transferred to the learned Magistrate at Nashik. 6. Petition disposed of accordingly.