Court fines woman Rs 50,000 as she claims husband had illicit relation with his own sister

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that the applicant’s conduct disentitled her from receiving discretionary relief in a transfer petition.

Transfer plea

• The applicant woman had filed cases for maintenance and regarding domestic violence.
• She alleged that during the subsistence of the marriage, her husband kept a lady who had abused, threatened, and beaten her up when she visited her matrimonial home.
• The court was informed that, after an investigation, a chargesheet was submitted in the aforesaid matter, and since then, the case has been pending.
• The applicant contended that she faced difficulty attending proceedings.
• She also claimed that the accused persons had threatened her and argued that since her domestic violence and maintenance proceedings had been transferred, the criminal case should also be shifted there.
• However, the transfer plea was opposed, asserting that the woman, against whom allegations were made, was in fact the real sister of the applicant’s husband, and that the applicant had maliciously implicated her and her family.

‘Court is shocked’

• During the proceedings, the court examined allegations repeatedly made by the applicant that the other woman was her husband’s “kept” and was involved in an illicit relationship with him.
• The court noted that when the matter was previously heard, it had granted the applicant an opportunity to verify the allegation and withdraw it if it was incorrect. Instead, the court found that she reiterated the accusation in a rejoinder affidavit.
• Observing that the applicant levelled false allegations against her husband’s sister, the bench said that the court was “shocked” that a person could seek to malign the relationship between a brother and sister in such a manner.
• It is sad that even though the court gave time to the applicant to withdraw the allegation, she reiterated the same in the rejoinder affidavit, the court noted.
• The judge held that the applicant’s conduct disentitled her from receiving discretionary relief in a transfer petition.
• The transfer jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and the deplorable conduct of the applicant disentitles them to get any discretionary relief from the court, it was observed.

No merit in transfer request

It further found no merit in the request for transfer. It noted that the case was being prosecuted by the state rather than as a private complaint. Therefore, the applicant was not required to personally attend every hearing.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents governing the transfer of criminal cases, the court reiterated that the convenience of all stakeholders, including the accused, witnesses and prosecution, must be considered and that a case cannot be transferred merely for the convenience of one party.

The court observed that while the applicant would not be required to attend every date, the accused persons and official witnesses would face significant inconvenience if the case were transferred.

The court, therefore, dismissed the transfer plea. It, however, ordered the applicant to pay Rs 50,000 in costs for levelling false allegations against her husband’s sister.

“The applicant has describing her husband’s real sister as her husband’s kept, and even after the Court had given an opportunity to withdraw the allegation, she reiterated the allegation in the rejoinder affidavit. The applicant has leveled false allegations on oath and has abused the process of this Court. Therefore, while rejecting the transfer application, a cost of Rs. 50,000/- is imposed upon the applicant,” the court ordered.