HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Transfer Criminal Petition Nos.167, 168 and 169 of 2010 Common Order:- Since the point involved and the parties are same, these three transfer petitions can be disposed of by this common order. 2. The point that arises for determination in these petitions is whether three cases i.e. a maintenance case, a criminal case and a DVC case mentioned therein can be transferred from the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Addanki (Addanki Court) to the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Parchur (Parchur Court). 3. In all these petitions, the petitioner is one Smt. Chadalavada Malati Devi and the second respondent by name Dr.Phanindra Babu Chadalavada, who is a medical practitioner at Addanki, is admittedly her husband. Hereafterwards for the sake of convenience they will be referred to by their names. 4. The plea of Smt. Malati Devi is that her marriage with Phanindra Babu was solemnized on 20.06.1986 and they are also blessed with two sons who are now said to be grown up. It is seen that subsequently estrangement started between them. Thereafter she filed a maintenance case M.C.No.20 of 2009 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), against her husband Phanindra Babu claiming maintenance and she also filed two other cases i.e. C.C.No.257 of 2009 for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC (police case) and D.V.C.No.3 of 2009 i.e. a case filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband making various allegations against him and claiming certain reliefs from him. All the three cases are pending in Addanki Court. 5. She filed three Tr.Crl.M.P.Nos.112, 114 and 116 of 2010 in the Sessions Court, Ongole, for transfer of all the above three cases to Parchur Court. The plea taken by her for transfer of all the three cases is that her husband is a womaniser and had neglected her totally and that subsequently after she filed the above cases she has been receiving threatening telephone calls and therefore she apprehends danger to her life if she attends the court at Addanki in connection with the above three cases and therefore all the three cases should be transferred to Parchur Court. Both the courts are in Prakasam District. The husband Phanindra Babu opposed all the three transfer petitions. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, Ongole, considered the respective cases of the parties and also the Public Prosecutor of Prakasam District and by a common order dated 05.07.2010 dismissed all the said petitions holding that Smt. Malati Devi has failed to make out a case for transfer. 7. Having been unsuccessful before the District Court, Smt. Malati Devi has again filed these three transfer petitions to have the aforesaid three cases transferred to Parchur Court. In these transfer petitions also before this court she reiterated her plea about the threatening telephone calls and other threats. 8. The various allegations made by Smt. Malati Devi against her husband Phanindra Babu are that the latter is a medical practitioner at Addanki and he developed illegal contacts with his women patients and in that process he came into contact with one Gruhalakshmi and developed illicit intimacy not only with her but also her mother and is leading an adulterous life with them and he has been threatening her to withdraw the cases and it is in that context she stated that she has been receiving the threatening phone calls. Her allegation appears to be that her husband is doing this alleged mischief in order to force her to withdraw the cases. She therefore says that the cases should be transferred to Parchur Court which is nearer to her parents place and with whom she is now living. 9. The learned counsel for the husband Phanindra Babu opposed all these transfer petitions and pointed out that Smt. Malati Devi developed some suspicion against her husband and commenced or filed all the three cases against him without any basis and she also got him imprisoned in the criminal case pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and not satisfied with that she has now filed these petitions only to further harass him. It is also pleaded on behalf of the husband that if the cases are transferred to Parchur Court that will affect his medical practice and he will not be in a position to maintain his children and wife also even if she joins him. He then pleaded that the threatening phone calls and the threats are all invented by Smt. Malati Devi for the purpose of transfer of cases and he never interfered in her affairs and in fact he has been ready to go on with the cases. 10. The point now is whether the request of Smt. Malati Devi for transfer of the above three cases to Parchur Court can be considered. 11. The respective cases of the parties have been set out supra. It should be noted that when Smt. Malati Devi filed the transfer petitions before the Sessions Court she did not say that she was living with her parents and it is only in the transfer petitions filed in this court she stated that she is living with her parents or taking shelter in her parents house at Nuthalapadu village within the limits of Parchur Court and she made that a ground for transfer of the cases now. This is the first minus point for her in these petitions. 12. It may then be noted that Smt. Malati Devi is aged about 45 years and going by her own version that her marriage took place on 20.06.1986 and they were blessed with two sons immediately both her sons must be aged around 20 years now. Even otherwise going by her above version they must have attained the age of discretion now but she did not choose to have their version either before the Sessions Court or this Court about the attitude of their father towards her and them or the alleged threats from him. In the absence of any such version of the sons supporting her case, the version of Smt. Malati Devi cannot be taken at face value and relied upon in accepting her case about the alleged threats to her life or limb. 13. It may then be noted that as seen from the order of the Sessions Court the version of Smt. Malati Devi before the Sessions Court and as well as in these petitions is her husband is a womaniser and started neglecting her. The mere fact that the husband is a womaniser by itself cannot be a ground for transfer of cases and at best it may relate to the merits of the matter in all the three cases. It may then be noted that the version of Smt. Malati Devi would disclose that she is not specific as to from whom she has been receiving the threatening telephone calls and what were the actual threats. The learned Sessions Judge considered this aspect and observed that there is no material on record to hold that her version regarding telephone calls can be believed as she failed to give any details. This is the third minus point for Smt. Malati Devi. 14. It is true that normally the convenience of the wife should be looked into but in the present case Smt. Malati Devi throughout stayed at her husband’s place when she filed the cases and in fact she filed the present transfer petitions in the Sessions Court giving her address only as the address of her husband i.e. Kranthi Nursing Home, Addanki, which belongs to her husband and she has suddenly changed her address as the house of her parents now. As already observed by the learned Sessions Judge she has not given any report to the concerned police and it is seen that she has not complained about the threats to her even in Addanki Court and if such complaint had been made they would have taken action to protect her interests. Thus in the circumstances of the case the rule relating to convenience of a woman cannot help her. 15. It may be noted that if in a case like this where no specific allegations are made and where no attempt is made by Smt. Malati Devi to go before the concerned police or before the trial court for her threats it would not be prudent at all to transfer the cases unless it is found that she received threats and it would be safe for her to stay with her parents away from her husband in Addanki. 16. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that Smt. Malati Devi should fail in these transfer petitions also. Accordingly these petitions are dismissed. It shall be open for Smt. Malati Devi to give reports to the concerned police in Addanki and also the court at Addanki and they are directed to give necessary protection to her in attending the said court. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 22nd July 2011 CVRK