Allowed

Jeralin Irudaya Mary v. Joseph Irudaya Raja

Madras HC16 Jun 2016TR CMP/7/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a transfer petition seeking to move a divorce suit from Ariyalur to Krishnagiri. The transfer was ordered to facilitate the petitioner who resides in Krishnagiri and is responsible for caring for a five-year-old child, overriding the respondent's claim of inconvenience. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of I.D.O.P.No.11 of 2015 from Principal District Judge, Ariyalur to Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri. No costs.

Jeralin Irudaya Mary Vs Joseph Irudaya Raja — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 16.06.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶5

and C.M.P.No.161 of 2016

¶6

Jeralin Irudaya Mary ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Joseph Irudaya Raja ... Respondent

¶9

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1906, praying to withdraw I.D.O.P.No.11 of 2015 pending on the file of learned District Judge, Principal District Court, Ariyalur and to transfer the same to the file of learned Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Premkumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar

¶11

Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking transfer of I.D.O.P.No.11 of 2015 pending on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Ariyalur to the file of learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent/husband has filed I.D.O.P.No.11 of 2015 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Ariyalur, seeking divorce. Submitting that the petitioner is residing at Krishnagiri, that she has to take care of five years child and that she having lost her parents, she and her child are under the care of her brother and hence, she finds it difficult to travel to Ariyalur to attend the hearing of the case, learned counsel prays for transfer.

¶13

Learned counsel for respondent submits that the respondent is working at Chennai and the transfer of

¶14

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

¶15

I.D.O.P.No.11 of 2015 would cause the respondent grave inconvenience.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions and the further position that the petitioner has to take care of a five year old child, this Court is of the view that the petition is to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court directs transfer of I.D.O.P.No.11 of 2015 pending on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Ariyalur, to the file of learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.

¶17

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, accordingly, is
ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kkd
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Ariyalur.
2.The Principal District Judge,
Krishnagiri.
1 cc to M/s.N.Premkumar, Advocate, sr.33177
1 cc to M/s.R.Bharathkumar, Advocate, sr.33185
Tr.CMP.No.7 of 2016
and CMP.No.161 of 2016
ad co
kra 13.07.2016

¶18

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

Jeralin Irudaya Mary v. Joseph Irudaya Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeralin Irudaya Mary v. Joseph Irudaya Raja

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

K Sellappan Vs R.D. Rajendra Nayudu

R.Saranya Vs G.Ranjith Gowdhaman

B.Suganya Vs Dhanalakshmi

Mrs. Deivakumari Vs Mr. Chandrasekar

B.Geetha Vs a.Annamalai

The Managing Director Vs Gopalakrishnan