Anand Byrareddy, J.:— Heard the petitioner appearing in person and Shri Shekar Shetty, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this court invoking the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This may indeed be misconceived. That, however, would not result in the petition being dismissed mechanically. The actual relief that the petitioner seeks is the withdrawal of the appeal, (preferred by her against an order of the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-II, Bangalore, rejecting her petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) now pending before the LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, to this court for disposal. Therefore, it would have been appropriate to file an application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. There is no impediment, however, for this court to treat this petition as an application filed under Section 407 Cr.PC or for this Court to act under the said provision, on taking note of the petitioner's prayer, notwithstanding Shri Shetty's vehement objection as to the matter of form.
3. The sum and substance of the petitioner's grievance is that she and the respondent had a torrid physical and emotional relationship for several years, which had flowered even during the subsistence of her marriage and had assumed full blown proportions, after her divorce from her legally wedded husband. But with advancing age, the respondent had chosen to disown her. She nad given up a bright and prestigious career for a life with the respondent and is now a destitute with little energy left to resume her academic career. She claims her due from the respondent, for having exploited the best years of her life.
4. The trial court, on a critical examination of the evidence, has concluded that the petitioner has failed to establish her case for any relief whatsoever.
5. The appellate court had refused any interim relief in the first instance. The petitioner is seen to have approached the Sessions Court seeking a transfer of the appeal, which had been granted. On such transfer the petitioner had again sought interim reliefs, coining the prayers in the manner she knew best. The court below instead of placing the petitioner on terms and calling upon her to argue the appeal itself on merits, had chosen to hear the applications which were not maintainable and in the face of the earlier order, has now passed a predictable order. This was a waste of precious court time.
6. The case is not of such a complex nature as would require a long drawn out hearing.
7. It is also noticed that petitioner's informal style of narration and her endeavour to make out a case on the bits and pieces of her past, which she may not have documented with the intention of initiating the proceedings which she is now pursuing, is not seen to be appreciated in the right perspective.
8. It is hence found necessary by this court, that in the interest of justice and having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, that the appeal should be withdrawn from the court below and be heard by this court.
9. It is Ordered that the appeal in Crl A. No. 1070/2015 on the file of the LIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore be withdrawn from the said court and placed before this court along with the lower court records for disposal.
10. The Registry to forthwith secure the papers from the court below. The matter is to be posted for further orders on receipt of the same.