IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 416 of 2024 SMT SUNITA SHIVHARE AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Lokendra Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Abhishek Bhadoriya - Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

None for the respondent No. 2 even though served.

ORDER The present petition is filed under Section 482 r/w. Section 407 of Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of the case No. 589/2015 RCT pending adjudication before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lateri, District Vidisha to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena, District Morena (M.P).

2. The facts in brief to decide the petition are that the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 are legally wedded wife and husband. The petitioner No.1/wife has been living separately with the respondent No. 2/husband.

3. The ground for filing this petition is that petitioner No. 1 is a housewife living at Morena (M.P.) with her brother and has no independent source of income. Respondent No. 1, the husband, is residing at Lateri, District Vidisha. It is further submitted that an FIR, bearing Crime No. 187 of 2015, was lodged against petitioner No. 1, Ravi Shivhare, Pinki Shivhare, and Ashok Shivhare by respondent No. 3 who is sister of respondent No. 2 for the alleged offences under Sections 294, 323, 506, and 34 of the IPC. This matter is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lateri, District Vidisha, as RCT No. 589 of 2015. It is further submitted that an FIR, bearing Crime No. 471 of 2014, was lodged by the petitioners against respondents No. 2 and 3 for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 34 of the IPC, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena. Further, an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner No.1 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Morena, against respondent No. 2 regarding interim maintenance. Since the said maintenance has not been given by respondent No. 2 to his wife- petitioner No. 1, and a false case has been registered before the Police Station Lateri merely to harass petitioners, the aforesaid case should be transferred to Morena in the interest of justice.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioners have to travel frequently with their family members for a distance of about 400 km, which is not possible for a woman who has no source of income and is completely dependent on her family members. Furthermore, in such circumstances, an arrest warrant has been issued against the petitioners. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 has sufficient income to bear the travelling expenses. If Petitioner No. 1 attends the JMFC, Lateri, District Vidisha, respondent No. 1/husband may harass her. In these circumstances, the case pending before the JMFC, Lateri, District Vidisha, (M.P.) may be transferred to the JMFC, Morena (M.P.).

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Anjali Ashok Sadhwani Vs. Ashok Kishinchand Sadhwani, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1374, wherein, it has been held that convenience of the wife must be looked into by the Court while exercising power to transfer the case.

7. It is seen from the record that a number of proceedings are pending before the Court at Morena, requiring the respondents to travel to Morena for attending court proceedings filed by petitioner No. 1/wife. On the contrary, only one case is pending before the Court at Vidisha, which was filed by the sister of respondent No. 2, who is also a lady. In such circumstances, convenience should be considered for both sides; therefore, no interference is warranted in the present facts and circumstances of case.

Accordingly, instant petition is hereby rejected.

(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )

JUDGE (LJ*)