HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.255 of 2010 ORDER:- The point that arises for determination in this application for transfer of a case is whether the criminal case C.C.No.240 of 2008 pending on the file of the Court of 16th Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, should be transferred to any competent Court of J.F.C.M at Ongole in Prakasam District. 2. The petitioner is the wife of the second respondent. Respondents 3 and 4 are said to be the mother and sister of the second respondent and the fifth respondent is the husband of the fourth respondent and there is no dispute about their relationship. Their marriage was solemnized on 14.01.2003 at Srisailam and they got it registered in the concerned Registrar’s Office at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. Subsequently, estrangement started between both of them and on the report of the petitioner a case in Crime No.319 of 2007 was registered in Saroornagar Police Station, Cyberabad for an offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. After completion of investigation the concerned investigating officer filed charge sheet in the said case and it was registered as C.C.No.240 of 2008 for the said offence on the file of the aforesaid Court. It is pending. 3. Pleading for the transfer of the aforesaid case to a J.F.C.M Court at Ongole, the petitioner raised three pleas. Her first plea is that she is not having any job now at Hyderabad nor does she have any property and therefore she is presently staying with her aged parents at Ongole and she cannot therefore attend the Court which is situated in Cyberabad and which is a far off place from Ongole. Her second plea is that her father is now aged 65 years and he himself has to lookafter his 90 year old mother who is bed ridden and therefore her parents cannot come to Hyderabad to give evidence because of their old age and her grandmother’s problem. The third plea of the petitioner is that her husband is in Government service at Hyderabad and he is having money and muscle power sufficient to kill her and her daughter and he warned her several times not to prosecute the matter and that he is also capable of managing the witnesses and getting an acquittal if the case is tried at Cyberabad. In this connection she also pleaded that her husband has kept his men ready to attack her and is waiting for a suitable opportunity to reap vengeance against her. 4. In the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner repeated the above pleas and urged for transfer of the case to Ongole. On the other hand the learned counsel for the husband and respondents 3 to 5 pointed out that the case is of 2008 and the wife has kept quiet all the while till now and suddenly came up with this transfer petition on 30.09.2010 and this is only to harass him. He further pointed out that the financial position of the wife is alright and she can afford to come to Cyberabad and he further pointed out that the second and third pleas of the wife which are mentioned above are only invented for the purpose of this petition and that the husband never threatened her. The point is now taken up. 5. It maybe noted that in matters pertaining to husband and wife the normal rule is the wife’s convenience should be taken into account unless there are special reasons to reject the request of the wife. This is the position laid down in NEELAM KANWAR VS. DEVENDERSINGH KANWAR[1]. In my view the following reasons, if they can be said to be special reasons, would show that the petitioner’s request cannot be considered. In the present case the wife gave the F.I.R on 23.03.2007 in Saroornagar Police Station which is in Cyberabad and after the charge sheet was filed it was registered in 2008 as C.C.No.240 of 2008. The charge sheet shows that at that time the parents of the wife i.e. Smt.Suvarna Lakshmi and Venkata Seshaiah were residing at Kurnool whereas the other two non-official witnesses were residing at Hyderabad. The petitioner did not express any difficulty at that time for her parents to come from Kurnool though that place can also be said to be not so nearer a place to Hyderabad. She has now come up with the plea for transfer on the ground that her parents cannot come from Ongole. 6. It may then be noted that petitioner is no-doubt a lady but at the same time respondents 3 and 4 who are said to be the mother and sister of the husband are also ladies. The petitioner allowed the case to continue here for nearly two years before she filed this petition. It should also be noted that petitioner filed a maintenance case i.e. M.C.55 of 2007 for maintenance in the Family Court in R.R District and that was partly allowed by that Court by its order dated 03.04.2008. All these aspects are mentioned in the petition itself. Not only this, the petitioner did not file any other case at Ongole against her husband to hold that she cannot prosecute both the cases at different places. Thus having regard to the fact that respondents 3 and 4 herein are also ladies and in the above circumstances the petitioner’s case for transfer based on her first and second pleas cannot be accepted. 7. Then coming to the third plea of the petitioner, it may be noted that the averments made by her in her petition regarding the danger to her life and limb from the husband are very vague in nature though she used the expression “I strongly apprehend”. She did not mention any untoward incident which has occurred previously and the plea taken by her in this behalf remains unsubstantiated. It is well settled that a case cannot be transferred on a mere apprehension. With regard to threat to her witnesses, it may be noted that the main witnesses for the petitioner are herself and her parents and her other close relatives. It therefore follows that there would be no scope for the petitioner’s husband to meddle with them. In other words the petitioner cannot be said to have made out a case for the aforesaid reasons to uphold her request for transfer. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the husband the attitude of the petitioner appears to be that she wants to have the case transferred to that place where she may shift her residence periodically. 8. In the result the point is decided against the petitioner and this Criminal Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 26th April 2011 Vjl/cvrk [1] 2000-SCC-10-589, 2000-JT-10-190