The following supreme court judgements will help you fight the transfer petitions filed by your wife:
Manish Rattan & ors. Vs. State of MP & Anr. reported in 2007 (1) SCC 262” this Hon’ble court held that “……offence cannot be said to be continuing one only because complainant/respondent no. 2 was forced to leave her matrimonial home and stayed with her parents at Datia”;
further This Hon’ble Court in the case of Bhiaru Ram & Ors. Vs. CBI & Ors. TP (Crl.) No. 37/2009 has been pleased to decline to transfer the case from Mumbai to Jaipur. There are catena of judgments in which this Hon’ble court has pleased to transfer the cases at the places, where both the parties are feeling convenient to contest their case and not inclined to transfer the case outrightly at the place of petitioner, were she has chosen to live.
In the case of Smt. Mona Vs. Ramandeep Aggarwal 2005 SCC 275; Nidhi Navani Vs. Vijay Navani I (2001) DMC 25 SC”, this Hon’ble court was not inclined to transfer the case to the place of petitioner in view of the apprehension raised by the husband and said case was transferred to the other place.
In the case of Transfer Petition Civil no. 117-118 of 2004 Corum: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava & Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Sema, has been pleased to laid down “…………merely because the petitioner is lady does not mean she cannot travel to Muzaffar Nagar……..”.
This Hon’ble Court further held in Transfer Petition (Civil) no. 191/2005 Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava & Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Sema that “……………even otherwise, it must be seen that at one stage this court was showing leniency to ladies. But since then it has been found that a large number of transfer petition are filed by women taking advantage of the lenience taken by this court. On an average at least 10-15 Transfer Petition are on board of each court on each admission day. It is, therefore, clear that leniency of this court is being misused by the women, this court is now required to consider each petition on its merit……” it is further observed by this court in the same case. “………..on the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the court on particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merit. Hence no ground for transfer has been made out…..”
That in the case of “Y. Abrahim Ajith and Ors. vs. Inspector of police, Chennai and Anr. reported in 2004 vol. VIII SC cases 100, this Hon’ble court has been pleased to lay down that the FIR cannot be registered without territorial jurisdiction as per section 177 Cr.PC. In the said case it is observed that section 177 Cr.PC reiterates the well established common law of rule referred to in Halsbury’s laws of England that the proper and ordinary venue for the trial of a crime is the area of jurisdiction in which, on the evidence, the facts occur and which are alleged to constitute the crime. There are several expectations to this general rule and some of them are, so far as present case is concerned indicate in section 178 Cr.PC. a significant word used in section 177 is “ordinarily”. Use of the word indicates that the provision is a general one and must be read subject to the special provisions contained in Cr.PC. no such exception is applicable to the case at hand. It is further observed in the said case that being so, the logic of section 178 (c) Cr.PC relating to continuous of the offences cannot be applied. The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court concerned. In terms of section 177 Cr.PC. it is the place where the offence was committed. In the essence it is the cause of action for initiating of the proceedings against the accused.
That in the case of Ramesh and ors. Vs. State of Tamilnadu reported in 2005 Vol. I JCC 493 SC. This Hon’ble court laid down the same law point as of the earlier case cited above That in the latest judgment of this Hon’ble court in the case of “Manish Rattan & ors. Vs. State of MP & Anr. reported in 2007 (1) SCC 262” this Hon’ble court held that “……offence cannot be said to be continuing one only because complainant/respondent no. 2 was forced to leave her matrimonial home and stayed with her parents at Datia”; further This Hon’ble Court in the case of Bhiaru Ram & Ors. Vs. CBI & Ors. TP (Crl.) No. 37/2009 has been pleased to decline to transfer the case from Mumbai to Jaipur.
In the case of Smt. Mona Vs. Ramandeep Aggarwal 2005 SCC 275; Nidhi Navani Vs. Vijay Navani I (2001) DMC 25 SC”, this Hon’ble court was not inclined to transfer the case to the place of petitioner in view of the apprehension raised by the husband and said case was transferred to the other place.
