Allowed

M. Kavitha, W/O. Marimuthu, v. K. Marimuthu

Madras HC27 Mar 2015TR CMP(MD)/32/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a transfer application under Section 24 CPC filed by a wife seeking to move a habeas corpus petition from the Family Court, Madurai, to the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar. The court relied on the settled principle of preferring the wife's convenience in matrimonial disputes.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; HMOP No.850 of 2014 is withdrawn from Family Court, Madurai, and transferred to Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar; case bundles sent forthwith.

M. Kavitha, W/O. Marimuthu, Vs K. Marimuthu — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 27.03.2015

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

¶6

TR.CMP(MD)No.32 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015

M.Kavitha

... Petitioner

Vs.

K.Marimuthu

... Respondent

Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the case in HMOP.No.850 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, and transfer it to the Sub Court, Virudhunagar.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Marimuthu

¶14

For Respondent : No appearance

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner is the wife. Her husband/respondent filed HMOP.No.850 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. She has filed the present petition seeking transfer of the aforesaid HMOP from the file of the Family Court, Madurai, to the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar, where, she is residing, stating that having a male child aged 5 years and being dependent on her parents for the livelihood, it is difficult to her to travel from Virudhunagar to Madurai, which is about 60 kilometers.

¶17

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice sent through Court was returned with an endorsement, “No such address”. Hence, paper publication was ordered on 12.03.2015 and despite the same, the respondent has not chosen to appear and contest this petition.

¶18

3.It is well settled law that whenever, the transfer application is filed in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of wife shall be given preference. Therefore, I am of the view that the petition filed by the wife is liable to be allowed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

¶20

4.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and HMOP.No.850 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the file of Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar, if the same is not yet disposed of. The learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai, is directed to send the case bundles forthwith to the Sub Judge, Virudhunagar. No costs. M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 is closed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶23

/True Copy/

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1)The Judge, Family Court, Madurai.

¶27

2)The Sub Judge, Virudhunagar.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.G.Marimuthu, Advocate, in SR. No.15614/15.

¶29

ORDER MADE IN TR.CMP(MD)No.32 of 2015 AND M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015 DATED : 27.03.2015

¶30

NB2

¶31

msm 06.04.2015 p2/4c

¶32

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

M. Kavitha, W/O. Marimuthu, v. K. Marimuthu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Kavitha, W/O. Marimuthu, v. K. Marimuthu

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

S.Muthukrishnan Vs K. Muthuselvi

Anitha Vs Saraswathy

S. Saranyadevi Vs Selvakumar

Saraswathi, W/O. Murugan, Vs Murugan, S/O. Karuppaiah

K.Premalatha Vs G.Karunakaran

E.Thangasamy Raja, Vs Mr. Subramanian