In a recent decision in the matter of Prachi Raviraj Barge v/s State of Maharashtra & Others, the High Court granted a transfer of a criminal case filed by a wife under Section 498A., Indian Penal Code - 1860 (IPC) and other related provisions, from the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Court in Koregaon, District Satara, to the JMFC Court in Pune. The transfer was sought by the wife, the Applicant, who is currently residing in Pune with her 9-year-old daughter. The decision considered the hardships faced by the Applicant, who argued that the distance and logistical challenges posed significant difficulties in attending the court proceedings in Satara, especially given her responsibility for her daughter.

The Applicant, a wife, had filed a complaint under Section 498A., Indian Penal Code - 1860, alleging cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws. The case was initially filed in the JMFC Court in Koregaon, Satara, where the Respondents, including her husband and other family members, reside. However, due to her relocation to Pune with her child, the Applicant found it challenging to travel to Koregaon for every court hearing, leading to her application for the transfer of the case.

The Applicant highlighted the hardships of managing her responsibilities as a single mother while attending the hearings in Koregaon, located around 100 kilometers away. She argued that the long travel distance, combined with the need for her elderly parents to accompany her, created undue physical and emotional strain.

The private Respondents, represented by their advocate, opposed the transfer application. They argued that the distance between Koregaon and Pune was manageable, and that the Applicant's concerns about hardship were not supported by any concrete evidence. The Respondents also pointed out that the Applicant had not filed any police complaints about alleged harassment or torture, implying that her fears of mistreatment were unsubstantiated.

Additionally, the Respondents contended that transferring the case to Pune would cause inconvenience for them, particularly as they reside in Satara and work as farmers, which would make traveling to Pune for hearings difficult.

The Respondents cited a 2022 case from the High Court (Shama W/o Elias Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra), where the court denied a transfer request on similar grounds, noting that criminal cases should not be transferred simply for the convenience of the wife, as criminal proceedings are distinct from civil cases. They also referred to Supreme Court rulings that emphasized the need for caution in transferring criminal cases solely on the grounds of convenience.

   

While the Respondents argued against the transfer, the court carefully weighed the Applicant's difficulties in attending court proceedings in Satara. The court took into account her responsibility as a mother, the distance between the two locations, and the need for her parents' assistance in traveling.

The court referred to the power vested in it under Section 407., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973, which allows for the transfer of criminal cases for the convenience of the parties or in the interest of justice. The court noted that this provision aims to ensure fair and impartial trials and considers the general convenience of the parties, including witnesses.

In addition, the court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022), which established that in matrimonial or related matters, the court must consider the socio-economic realities and hardships faced by the wife, particularly when the wife is seeking the transfer of proceedings. The Supreme Court had emphasized that in such cases, the wife’s convenience should be given due weight, especially when she is the primary caregiver for children.

In light of the hardships faced by the Applicant, including her caregiving responsibilities for her young daughter, the court found sufficient grounds to allow the transfer. The court recognized that while the distance between Satara and Pune was not excessively long, the difficulties of travel, particularly for a single mother, were significant. Moreover, the Applicant's need for support from her elderly parents further complicated the logistics of attending court hearings in Satara.

To address the Respondents' concerns, the court allowed them to appear via video conferencing (VC) for the proceedings in Pune, thereby mitigating their travel difficulties. However, the Respondent who is the Applicant’s husband was required to attend court in person but could apply for video conferencing if necessary, subject to approval from the Pune court.

The High Court directed that the case be transferred to the JMFC Court in Pune, and proceedings should continue there in accordance with the transfer order. The case is expected to be heard by the Pune court, and the Respondents will be allowed to appear remotely, easing the travel burden on them.