Allowed

S.Ananthalakshmi (Age 33) v. R.Narayanan (Age 38)

Madras HC18 Jul 2013TR CMP(MD)/170/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a transfer petition regarding a pending restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance case. The court transferred the matter from the Family Court in Chennai to the Sub Court in Tuticorin due to the petitioner's financial constraints, distance, and the welfare of her young child.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of H.M.O.P.No.844 of 2012 from Family Court, II, Chennai to the Sub Court, Tuticorin.

S.Ananthalakshmi (Age 33) Vs R.Narayanan (Age 38) — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.07.2013

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.170 of 2013

¶7

S.Ananthalakshmi ... Petitioner/Respondent

¶8

vs.

¶9

R.Narayanan ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 24 C.P.C, to call for the records pursuant to the O.P.No.844 of 2013 on the file of the Family Court, II Chennai and transfer the same to the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Porkodikarnan For Respondent : Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶14

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent has filed H.M.O.P.No.844 of 2013 seeking the relief of restitution of conjugal rights which is pending before the Family Court, II, Chennai and the petitioner with her 1½ years old child living with her parents and the parents alone spent the expenses of the petitioner and her child. In the above said circumstances, the petitioner could not travel alone in night to Chennai from Tuticorin and also unable to spend money for travelling and therefore, prayed to transfer the H.M.OP.No.844 of 2013 which is pending before the Family Court, II, Chennai to Tuticorin.

¶15

3.Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that only after receipt of notice from the Family Court, II, Chennai, the petitioner preferred a maintenance case in M.C.No.7 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikundam, Tuticorin District in order to harass the petitioner and the attitude of the petitioner caused great mental agony to the respondent and only due to the ill advice and misguidance of the petitioner's parents, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present petition has been filed and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of this petition.

¶16

¶17

4.A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, no where it is stated that the petitioner was not living with her parents and the parents not spent money for the petitioner and her child. It is also not in dispute that the age of the petitioner's child is 1½ years. Considering, the welfare of the child, financial condition of the petitioner and distance, this Court is of the view that the case is pending before the Family Court, II, Chennai to be transferred to Tuticorin and the petition is to be allowed as prayed for.

¶18

5.In the result, the transfer petition is ordered and the H.M.O.P.No.844 of 2012 which is pending before the Family Court, II, Chennai is ordered to transfered to the Sub Court, Tuticorin.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

Deputy Registrar(J) /True Copy/

¶21

Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

1.The Presiding Officer, The Family Court, II, Chennai

¶24

2.The Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin

¶25

+One cc to M/s.nLakshmi Gopinathan, Advocate, SR.No.36433 +One cc to Mr.Aayiram K.Selvakumar, Advocate, SR.No.36311 +One cc to M/s.Porkodi Kannan, Advocate, SR.No.36157

¶26

sms

¶27

RL/6c - 2/8/2013

¶28

Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.170 of 2013

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

18.07.2013

S.Ananthalakshmi (Age 33) v. R.Narayanan (Age 38)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Ananthalakshmi (Age 33) v. R.Narayanan (Age 38)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs S.Jeyarani

Ghayathri Vs Arivazhagan

The Managing Director Vs v.Ramasamy

G.Veeraperumal, Vs M.Ponnusamy

T. Kamatchi Suganya Vs S. Sankaranayaranan

K.M.Jeyakodi @ Muthukrishnan Vs S.Jebamalai