..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2705 OF 2007 Sau.Panchshila Ravindra Kedare. ..Applicant. Versus Versus Versus Shri Ravindra Bhimrao Kedare & State of Maharashtra. ..Respondents. .. Smt.Gauri Jadhav, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.V.V.Gangurde, Adv. for Respondent No.1. Smt.M.M.Mhatre, APP, for Respondent No.2-State. .. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : JANUARY 16, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 16, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 16, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant-wife, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1-husband and the learned APP for respondent No.2-State. 2. The applicant who is the wife of respondent No.1 has filed this application for transfer of the proceedings relating to Regular Criminal Case No.28 of 2006 from the Court of JMFC, Ulhasnagar, Chopda where it is pending to the Court of JMFC, Manmad. The said proceeding relates to FIR No.I-124 of 2005 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC registered at Badlapur ..(2).. police station. 3. The ground on which the transfer is sought is that the applicant-wife has no means for livelihood and she has two minor children to maintain. She is residing in her father’s house at Manmad and from Manmad she has to attend the case which is in Ulhasnagar Court for which she is required to spend almost Rs.500/- towards travelling and other expenses to attend the Court at Ulhasnagar. The petitioner has been granted interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- only for herself and her two children. The children are college going, hence it is difficult for her to spend Rs.500/- each time when she has to attend the Court at Ulhasnagar. Hence, the applicant has prayed for transfer of the said case from the Court of JMFC, Ulhasnagar, Chopda to the Court of JMFC, Manmad. 4. The learned Advocate for respondent No.1-husband has stated that recording of the evidence in the case is over and now the matter is kept only for recording of the statement of the ..(3).. accused and thereafter judgment. However, the learned Advocate for the applicant-wife has stated that she is not aware whether entire evidence has been recorded. 5. In view of the statement made by the learned Advocate for respondent No.1-husband, it is no longer necessary for the applicant-wife to attend the Court of JMFC, Ulhasnagar, Chopda. Hence, in such case, I do not find it necessary to transfer the said case from the Court of JMFC, Ulhasnagar, Chopda to the Court of JMFC, Manmad. Hence, application is rejected. However, it is made clear that if the recording of evidence is not yet over, liberty is granted to the applicant to prefer a fresh application. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)