38.6c New Delhi, India, Thursday, July 18, 2024

Criminal cases can't be equated with matrimonial proceedings: Bombay High Court Rejects Transfer Plea

By Deeksha Sinha      10 March, 2022 05:05 PM      0 Comments
Criminal cases can't be equated with matrimonial proceedings: Bombay High Court Rejects Transfer Plea

The said order came on an application seeking transfer of proceedings filed by a wife of an accused in a matrimonial cruelty case. 

Shital Aditya Jibhkate V. State of Maharashtra & Ors

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently rejected an application filed for transfer of trial proceedings from Nagpur to Akola for offenses under 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

Although the law prioritizes the convenience of the wife while dealing with the matrimonial disputes, Justice AK Kilor was of the view that the criminal case cannot be equated with matrimonial proceedings. 


In a criminal case, the consequences of non-appearance of the accused would be quite drastic and thus, the said consequences cannot be ignored while considering the request of transfer of criminal trial to Akola, for her convenience," the single judge stated.

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code deals with punishments for the offense of a husband and/or his kin subjecting the wife to cruelty.

The applicant moved the application citing financial, medical and jurisdictional difficulties. She submitted that since she is unemployed, she does not earn any income. Adding health issues to the application. 

She claimed that she was advised bed-rest by a doctor on account of having suffered a miscarriage in March last year. Her plea also stated that since three connected matrimonial matters were pending at the Akola court, the criminal proceeding ought to be transferred for the sake of her convenience.

Further, she alleged that her life was under threat and placed reliance on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Dharmendrabhai Patadia vs State of Gujarat & Ors.

Her plea was strongly opposed by the accused-respondents as they were of the view that her role in the criminal proceedings was minimal, and did not demand her attendance on every date of hearing. They highlighted that, in contrast, non-attendance on their part would yield drastic results in the form of issuance of bailable or non-bailable warrants.

The Court's attention was brought to the fact that all the 22 witnesses were residents of Nagpur. Their convenience is relevant, it was submitted.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Jyoti Mishra vs Dhananjaya Mishra, the respondents asserted that a criminal case and matrimonial proceedings cannot be equated. Hence, they requested the Court to not consider the application for transfer of proceedings.

The High Court rejected the application, holding that the convenience of the 22 witnesses was relevant.

The applicant was represented by Advocate SP Sontakke. Advocate AN Jaiswal appeared for the respondents. Additional Public Prosecutor SD Sirpurkar represented the State of Maharashtra.

Share this article:

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Know The Law
Zero FIR: Here’s all you need to know!

Understanding Zero FIR: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 154 allows FIR at any police station. E-FIR under Section 173 ensures efficient crime reporting in India.

17 July, 2024 01:25 PM
Trending Judiciary
Judicial activist Ashwini Upadhyay asks SC to declare amendment to Preamble as unconstitutional

Judicial activist Ashwini Upadhyay petitions SC to declare the 42nd Amendment to the Preamble, which added "Socialist," "Secular," and "Integrity," as unconstitutional.

17 July, 2024 05:14 PM


Trending Judiciary
Bombay High Court denies interim relief in plea against 1 year Pan Masala Ban [Read Order]

Bombay High Court denies interim relief to petitioners challenging the 1-year ban on pan masala, citing arguable questions and ongoing similar cases.

12 July, 2024 10:00 AM
Trending Judiciary
SC Collegium recommends appointment of Chief Justices of eight High Courts [Read Order]

SC Collegium recommends appointments of Chief Justices for Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, and Meghalaya High Courts.

12 July, 2024 10:55 AM
Trending Judiciary
SC orders interim bail for Kejriwal in ED case, refers issues on arrest to larger bench

SC grants interim bail to Kejriwal in ED case, refers arrest issues to larger bench; AAP leader remains in jail due to separate CBI arrest in liquor scam.

12 July, 2024 11:21 AM
Trending Judiciary
Hathras incident: SC refuses to consider PIL on inquiry, adequate compensation

Supreme Court declines PIL on Hathras stampede inquiry and compensation, directs petitioner to approach High Court for addressing the issue.

12 July, 2024 01:38 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email