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. 1565 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 1565 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 1565 OF 2005 Naziruddin Nazamuddin Kazi ... Petitioner v/s Kishwar Naziruddin Kazi ... Respondent Mr.I.M.Khairadi for the petitioner. Smt.Shabana Shah with Mr.Vishal Kakkar i/by O.A.Siddiqui for the respondent No.1. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 20TH JUNE, 2008 20TH JUNE, 2008 20TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition has been filed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Solapur on 14.2.2005. By this order, the Sessions Court has directed that all criminal cases filed by the opponent i.e. the petitioner herein against the applicant i.e. the respondent No.1 herein should be fixed and tried before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Solapur. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prejudiced by the order since the Sessions Court has proceeded to transfer the cases on 2 the ground that the respondent is posted in Lonavala and that there is a direct train service between Lonavala and Solapur. The learned counsel submits that this was not one of the ground which was made out in the application for transfer of the cases to Solapur. According to him, the respondent No.1 does not deserve any relief in the application as she has committed several offences and violated orders passed against her by the Civil Court. He contends that certain scurrilous and obscene letters have been written by the respondent No.1 to defame the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No.1 has not only written such letters to the petitioner but has also published such letters by writing to various authorities, thereby defaming him. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 draws my attention to ground (g) in the application for transfer. She submits that the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that it is impossible for the respondent No.1 to go to Barshi on various dates to attend 115 cases filed by the petitioner against her. She points out that there is a direct train to Solapur and, therefore, it would be convenient for the respondents to attend the Court in Solapur. She submits that today the respondent No.1 is 3 posted in Dhule, but travelling to Solapur would be more convenient than undertaking a journey to Barshi. 4. A bare perusal of the application for transfer indicates various reasons for which the transfer is sought. Without going into the other reasons, I find that in Ground (g), the respondent No.1 herein has mentioned that it is highly impossible for the respondent No.1 to reach Barshi from Khandala on each day of hearing. Respondent No.1 is an Assistant Government Pleader and presently practicing in Dhulia. However, when the application was made, she was practicing in Khandala. The Sessions Court after considering all the grounds set out in the application for transfer, has found that most of them are vague. However, the Sessions Judge was impressed with the ground that the respondent would have to travel to Barshi from Khandala without there being a direct train available between those places. The learned advocate for the respondents stated that, even from Dhulia it would be more convenient for the respondent No.1 to travel to Solapur after taking a night halt in Pune. 5. I do not find that there are any infirmities in the order of the Sessions Court which require interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. 4 6. This is an unfortunate case when two educated people are quarrelling between themselves when the dispute could be settled by some rational thiking on their part. The petitioner and the respondent No.1 are married. The relationship between them has soured which has caused them to act in a vicious and vindictive manner against each other. Both the learned advocates, at my suggestion, had tried to instill some sense into their respective clients. However, the petitioner, a practicing advocate who is present in Court, has refused to see the reason. 7. I am, therefore, constrained to decide the present petition. 8. In these circumstances, the petition is dismissed.