The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for the petitioner to establish the possession of the documents by the respondent before filing an application under Section 91(2) of Cr.P.C., and the consideration of the convenience of the wife as a crucial factor in deciding the transfer application.

JUDGMENT :

B.A. Patil, J.

Criminal petition No.101046/2018 has been filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed on I.A.2 filed under Section 91(2) of Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by order dated 22.05.2018 by the learned JMFC, Kudligi in C.C.No.267/2016. Criminal Petition No.101100/2018 has been filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to transfer the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.267/2016 pending on the file of the learned JMFC Court, Kudligi to any other Court at Davangere.

2. Though both the cases are posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same have been taken up for final disposal. Since both the petitions are between the same parties, in order to avoid repetition of facts and law, the same have been clubbed together and disposed of by this common order.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent.

4. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that she got married with the respondent on 21.10.2013 and thereafter they led marital life. Thereafter there was ill-treatment and harassment by the respondent-husband for demand of dowry and as such, panchayat was also held and it did not yield any fruits. Subsequently, respondent filed a divorce petition in MAT No.26/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kudligi. The same came to be dismissed and being aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred an appeal before this Court and the same is pending. In the said petition, an interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- was awarded for a period of six months and subsequently, no maintenance was granted or given by the respondent-husband and as such she filed the petition for claiming the maintenance in Cri.Misc.No.267/2016. The respondent appeared and contested the case. In order to substantiate the fact that the respondent is having sufficient source of income, she filed an application in I.A.2 under Section 91(2) of Cr.P.C. summoning the respondent to produce the documents pertaining to the agricultural income, salary and personal income of the respondent. The said application came to be dismissed by hearing both the parties. Challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Further, it is the further contention of the petitioner that she is a resident of Davangere and the distance between Davangere to Kudligi is about 90 kms and it is very difficult for her to travel the said distance and proceed with the matter. It is further contendd that nobody is there to accompany her and greater hardship would be caused to the petitioner if the case is continued in Kudligi. It is further contended that the convenience of the petitioner-wife has to be kept in view at the time of adjudication of the matrimonial disputes and the maintenance. The convenience of the wife has to be considered and the matter has to be transferred from Kudligi Court to Davangere Court.

6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the application filed under Section 91(2) of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as the respondent has already filed an affidavit and submitted to the Court that he is no more working in Infosys nor in any company and has not getting any salaried income. It is his further submission that, insofar as agricultural property is concerned, the petitioner can obtain the documents from Bhoomi Kendra and other concerned offices and it is not necessary that the respondent has to produce the said documents. It is his further contention that, the petitioner-wife has to establish that the respondent is having sufficient sources of income and she is unable to maintain herself and she is not having any sources of income for her maintenance. The said application has been filed only with an intention to harass the respondent. On these grounds, he prayed that the trial Court after considering all the facts has rightly rejected the said I.A.2. There are no good grounds