IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No. 8656 OF 2017(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Sunitha Motwani Age 50 years, W/o Amitabh Sinha, F-1801, Ajmera Infinity Neeladri Road, Electronic City -1 Bengaluru – 560 100.
2. Karthickeya( @ Kaalanjay Sinha) Age 14 years, S/O Amitabh Sinha Bengaluru – 560 100.
Shall be represented by Mother Sunitha Motwani.
(By Smt. Sunita Motwani, Party-In-Person) AND:
1. Amitabh Sinha Age 40 years, S/o Shri Late Maheshwari Charan Sinha, ... Petitioners 1133 Grogans Mill Drive, Cary, North Carolina – 27519 United States.
Or at, House No.179, Tiwaripur 1st Post Adarsh Nagar, Sewans Tannery, Kanpur – 208010.
2. The Sheristadar, Hon’ble ACJM Court, Bengaluru – Rural Magistrate Court Complex, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 009.
(By Shri Sandeep Hegde, Advocate) ... Respondents This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution Of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitoner appearing party-in-person praying for grant of transfer of case from the court of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other competent Court (Sessions court) where the pending branch is not the same and directions for fair and impartial trials in cc no. 3357/2016 and criminal misc.573/2015 This Writ Petition having been heard and reserved on 18.04.2017 and coming on for pronouncement of Judgment this day, ANAND BYRAREDDY, J., delivered the following:-
ORDER Heard the party-in-person and the learned advocate for the respondent.
2. It transpires that, the present petitioner, Smt. Sunitha Motwani is fighting her battle, as party in person, for herself and her son aged about 14, against her husband, who was a resident of the United States of America and who is said to have deserted her and her son, when he was aged 4. And since then, she has been living in India and is said to be at the mercy of her relatives for her livelihood. With much difficulty and struggle, she has been able to secure her husband’s presence before the Court. The two matters in Criminal Misc. 573/2015 and CC No. 3357/2016 were transferred from the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Court of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural.
3. It transpires that the petitioner is conducting her case without the assistance of a Counsel and when she was tendering evidence from the witness box, she was not able to follow as to what was happening, since the proceedings were conducted in the Kannada Language, of which she is not familiar. There was no translator provided to assist her. It is the complaint of the petitioner that, the Counsel appearing for her husband was intensively aggressive and was allowed to browbeat the petitioner, and he is said to have insisted on posing questions in the Kannada language, inspite of the petitioner pleading that she did not follow the language.
4. It is also her case that she had produced certain electronic evidence in accordance with the law, namely, in due compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1892, which according to her was openly tampered with by the respondent’s Counsel. At a point of time, it is her complaint that the Presiding Officer also appeared to be irritated with her presence and when the petitioner protested as to the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted, the Presiding Officer is said to have expressed that he has no objection if the case is transferred to some other Court.
5. Therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was requested to provide information as to any other Court which would not be averse to conducting the case in the language understood by the petitioner and which is in a position to control the proceedings and not to allow the Counsel to browbeat the petitioner, who is a woman estranged from her husband seeking justice, which the husband has resisted with all his might.
It transpires that the petitioner is also not being provided with maintenance that has been ordered by the Court and she faces innumerable difficulties in getting through the procedure and seeking appropriate relief at every stage.
6. In an Order by this Court, dated 4.4.2017 it was observed that, given the pressure of work and the atmosphere that prevails in the Court of the Magistrate, it would be necessary to treat this particular petitioner with some concern and therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was requested to indicate as to which other Court, the case could be transferred to. In the meanwhile, the further proceedings in Criminal Misc.573/2015 and CC No.3357/2016 pending before the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural, were stayed.
7. In response by a letter dated 12.4.2017, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, has left it to this Court to decide on the choice of the Court. Accordingly, the two cases pending before the Court of the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural, namely, Criminal Misc. 573/2015 filed under Sections 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and CC No. 3357/2016 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, shall stand transferred to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
8. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is requested to preferably conduct the further proceedings in-camera and ensure it is done on a day-to-day basis as far as possible and expedite the matter. The Court below need not take a strict view of the manner in which the petitioner endeavours to follow procedure and shall use its discretion liberally, as the main object of any Court is to arrive at the truth and the manner in which it is done can be flexible.
This petition is disposed of in terms as above.
Sd/- JUDGE nv/ak*