State of Mysore Vs. Rangappa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- family courts act,1984[c.a.no.66/1984] -- section 19(4): [n.k. patil, j] revision petition prayer for enhancement of maintenance non-consideration of the salary certificate issued by the college produced by the revision petitioner which discloses total gross salary of the respondent at rs.12,000/- p.m. family court awarded rs.1,500/- for wife and rs.500/- for the daughter - failure of the family court to consider the necessities of the minor daughter expenses towards cost of food, clothing, education, providing conducive atmosphere for the study of minor held, it is the duty of the family court to take pragmatic approach, having regard to the status of the parties and the cost of living in the society. impugned judgment passed by the family court was set aside. award of maintenance is enhanced to rs.2,000/- for the wife and rs.1,500/- to the daughter. - the district magistrate on being apprised of this has sought for orders of this court for the case being tried in chikmagalur itself as the complainant, the accused and the witnesses are all residents of that place and trial of the case there will be conducive to their convenience as well as speedy disposal of the case. states thatthe proceedings in a wrong court are not to betreated as invalid unless there is failure of justice. in the present case, i am satisfied that it willmaterially contribute to the convenience of theparties and facilitate the expeditious disposal of thecase if it is tried in chikmagalur.order1. in the charge sheet presented by the police in c.c. no. 53 of 1954 on the file of the first class magistrate, chikmagalur, the accused is said to have committed offence of theft with respect to a carpet in tiptur which is admittedly not within the jurisdiction of the magistrate. consequently he desired that the case should be transferred to the court competent to try it. the district magistrate on being apprised of this has sought for orders of this court for the case being tried in chikmagalur itself as the complainant, the accused and the witnesses are all residents of that place and trial of the case there will be conducive to their convenience as well as speedy disposal of the case. the accused though notified, is absent and unrepresented.a doubt was at first felt whether section 526, criminal p. c. can be availed of when the case was wrongly instituted in a court and no question of sending the case from one court to another is involved. there are, however, instances in which this is considered to be possible under the said section.in -- 'queen-empress v. atmaram govind', 2 bom lr 394 (a) a case was committed to a court of session which had no jurisdiction to deal with it and the high court nevertheless directed that the case may be proceeded within that court.'in re ganapathy chetty', air 1920 mad 824 (b) is a similar case.in 39 mys hcr 907 (c), it has been held by abench of this court that under section 526,criminal p.c., a case may be transferred to thecourt having jurisdiction from a court not havingjurisdiction. section 531, criminal p. c. states thatthe proceedings in a wrong court are not to betreated as invalid unless there is failure of justice.in the present case, i am satisfied that it willmaterially contribute to the convenience of theparties and facilitate the expeditious disposal of thecase if it is tried in chikmagalur. i, therefore,direct that the case be tried in the court where itis now pending.2. order accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. In the charge sheet presented by the Police in C.C. No. 53 of 1954 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Chikmagalur, the accused is said to have committed offence of theft with respect to a carpet in Tiptur which is admittedly not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Consequently he desired that the case should be transferred to the Court competent to try it. The District Magistrate on being apprised of this has sought for orders of this Court for the case being tried in Chikmagalur itself as the complainant, the accused and the witnesses are all residents of that place and trial of the case there will be conducive to their convenience as well as speedy disposal of the case. The accused though notified, is absent and unrepresented.

A doubt was at first felt whether Section 526, Criminal P. C. can be availed of when the case was wrongly instituted in a Court and no question of sending the case from one court to another is involved. There are, however, instances in which this is considered to be possible under the said section.

In -- 'Queen-Empress v. Atmaram Govind', 2 Bom LR 394 (A) a case was committed to a Court of Session which had no jurisdiction to deal with it and the High Court nevertheless directed that the case may be proceeded within that Court.

'In re Ganapathy Chetty', AIR 1920 Mad 824 (B) is a similar case.

In 39 Mys HCR 907 (C), it has been held by aBench of this Court that under Section 526,Criminal P.C., a case may be transferred to theCourt having jurisdiction from a Court not havingjurisdiction. Section 531, Criminal P. C. states thatthe proceedings in a wrong Court are not to betreated as invalid unless there is failure of justice.In the present case, I am satisfied that it willmaterially contribute to the convenience of theparties and facilitate the expeditious disposal of thecase if it is tried in Chikmagalur. I, therefore,direct that the case be tried in the Court where itis now pending.

2. Order accordingly.