Allowed

Gandhimathi v. Chinnasamy

Madras HC9 Apr 2015TR CMP(MD)/28/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court transferred a divorce petition filed by the husband from Sub Judge, Neyveli, to Sub Judge, Pudukkottai, where the wife and their daughters reside. The transfer was granted to accord preference to the wife's convenience in view of her lack of independent income and the hardship of travel, merging the proceedings with her existing restitution of conjugal rights

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2013 withdrawn from Sub Judge, Neyveli and transferred to Sub Judge, Pudukkottai to be tried with H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2014.

Gandhimathi Vs Chinnasamy — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 09.04.2015 CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶5

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.28 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

Gandhimathi

... Petitioner

Vs.

Chinnasamy ... Respondent

¶10

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the case on the file of the Learned Sub-Judge, Neyveli in H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2013 and transfer the same to the learned Sub-Judge, Pudukkottai and try along with the H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2014.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Rameshkumar

¶12

For Respondent : No appearance

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the case on the file of the Learned Sub-Judge, Neyveli in H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2013 and transfer the same to the learned Sub-Judge, Pudukkottai and try along with the H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2014.

¶15

The petitioner herein is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 10.02.1993.Due to mental, physical torture by the respondent herein, the petitioner was forced to leave the matrimonial home with two daughters and staying with her parents' at Pudukottai. She filed H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2014 before the Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent/husband filed H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2013 before the Sub Judge, Neyveli for divorce. The petitioner is not having any independent income and she is depending upon her parents to attend the hearing at Neyveli. She is finding it very difficult to travel such a long distance from Pudukottai to Neyveli along with her two daughters. She has also stated that it will not be difficult for the respondent/husband to attend the hearing at Pudukottai.

¶16

3.Now, the petitioner/wife filed this petition to transfer the aforesaid H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2013 filed by the respondent/Husband before the Sub Judge, Neyveli to the Sub Judge, Pudukottai and try along with H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2014.

¶17

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notice, the respondent has not chosen to appear either in person or through pleader.

¶18

¶19

5.It is well settled law that whenever, the transfer application is

¶20

filed in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife shall be given preference. Therefore, I am of the view that the petition filed by the wife is liable to be allowed.

¶21

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed

¶22

and H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Judge, Neyveli is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Sub Judge, Pudukkottai to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.10 of 2014 filed by the petitioner, if the same is not yet disposed of. The learned Sub Judge, Neyveli is directed to send the case bundles to the Court of the Sub Judge, Pudukottai, immediately. The Registry is also directed to send back the papers that are pending before the Registry. No costs. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 is closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(T & P)

¶25

\True copy\

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

1.The Subordinate Judge, Neyveli

¶29

2.The Subo Judge,Pudukottai.

¶30

3.The Section Officer, VR section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

¶31

+1cc to MR.D.RAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE SR.NO.17904

¶32

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.28 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶33

¶34

NA/30/04/2015/P2/5C

¶35

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

Gandhimathi v. Chinnasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandhimathi v. Chinnasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thyla, F/a 27 Yrs Vs P.Sathish Kumar, M/a 32 Yrs

P. Palanivel Vs the Managing Director

S.K.Krishnamoorthy Vs Sivakamasundari

M.Thuraisingam, Vs S.M.R.Rajasekar

Divyabharathi Vs Ayyampandi

N.Shyamala Vs S.Anandan