HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.248 of 2010 ORDER:- The point that arises for determination in this transfer petition is whether a criminal case i.e. C.C.No.69 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodur, Kadapa District, should be transferred to any JFCM Court at Nellore. 2. Petitioners herein are A-1 to A-5 in the aforesaid case which is filed by police. The first respondent herein is the de facto complainant in it. The offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The first petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant while petitioners 2 to 4 are his sisters. The 5th petitioner is a nephew of the first petitioner. 3. Regarding the plea for transfer of the case to Nellore, petitioners relied upon two grounds. The first is that all the allegations in the case would show that all the acts constituting the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, occurred at Bhujabhuja Nellore and no offence took place within the limits of the JFCM Court at Kodur within the limits of which the first respondent is now residing and therefore going by Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Code), the case should be tried by a JFCM Court at Nellore having jurisdiction over Bhujabhuja Nellore and consequently the petition shall be allowed. In this connection they further pleaded that after the marriage which took place on 24.10.1995 the first respondent and the first petitioner lived only at Nellore and they are blessed with a son and a daughter who are now school going. 4. The second ground is that the first petitioner is residing at Nellore where he is in Government service and the children are with him and they are attending a school at Nellore and his sisters are also living at Nellore and it would be inconvenient for them to attend the court at Koduru. The first petitioner further pleaded that the first respondent is living in adultery with one Shaik Meera at her parents place which is within the limits of JFCM court at Koduru and he also filed a divorce OP in the Court at Nellore and that ended in a decree on 24.11.2008 and during the pendency of that OP the first respondent gave a false report to the police which resulted in this case. It is true that the merits of the allegations in the divorce OP cannot be a ground for transfer. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent on the other hand pointed out that harassment continued even when the first respondent was at her parents place which is within the limits of JFCM Court, Koduru, and therefore there are no merits in this petition. 6. Now coming to the point it is true that in matrimonial matters the convenience of the woman should be taken into account. It can also be said that since the first respondent’s plea is that she stayed with her parents and according to her she was not allowed into the society of the first petitioner and harassment continued there also, a part of cause of action in the form of effect can be said to have arisen there also and consequently the JFCM Court at Koduru can be said to have jurisdiction. However notwithstanding the above aspects I am of the opinion that the case should be transferred to one of the JFCM Courts at Nellore town on the second ground for the following reasons. 7. It may firstly be noted that the first petitioner is a Government employee and he is admittedly having custody of the two children of the parties and he is educating them at Nellore. His plea that he has to look after both the children and daily send them to school is not disputed. Now if the first petitioner is required to go to JFCM court, Kodur, which is at a considerable distance from Nellore, for every date of hearing he may have to go there a day in advance and stay there for one or two days and that would cause much inconvenience to both the children. After all, they are the children of the first respondent also and in view of this she can be put to the inconvenience of coming to Nellore for the sake of children. 8. It may then be noted that petitioners 2, 3 and 4 who are aged 66, 41 and 46 years respectively are also ladies. Having regard to their convenience also the case can be brought to Nellore. 9. Now coming to the aspect of costs which the petitioners counsel stated that the first petitioner would bear, the charge sheet shows that apart from the investigating officer, who is cited as fifth witness in it, there are only four other witnesses. Of them, the first witness is the first respondent, the second and third witnesses are said to be her parents and the fourth witness is stated to be a person who mediated for a compromise and also attended the marriage of the parties. I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the first petitioner is directed to bear the expenses of the above four non- official witnesses as per rules in attending the JFCM Court at Nellore to give evidence. Accordingly the case is withdrawn from the Court of JFCM, Kodur of Kadapa District and is transferred to I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-JFCM Court, Nellore. The former court shall take steps to despatch immediately the record in the case to the latter court. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 26th July 2011 CVRK