Allowed

Gowri v. Deivanathan

Madras HC18 Aug 2017TR CMP/335/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a transfer petition filed by a petitioner seeking to move matrimonial proceedings from Tindivanam to Tambaram. The court noted the petitioner's residence in Chennai and care responsibilities, finding physical inconvenience justified the transfer under Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in H.M.O.P No. 124 of 2016 were withdrawn from the Principle Subordinate Court, Tindivanam and transferred to the Sub Court, Tambaram.

Gowri Vs Deivanathan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:18.08.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

TR CMP NO.335 of 2017 AND CMP NO.6625 of 2017

¶6

Gowri ... Petitioner

¶7

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw of the H.M.O.P No. 124 of 2016 from the file of the Principle Subordinate Court, Tindivanam and transfer the same to the Sub Court, Tamabaram.

¶8

The petitioner has filed this transfer petition with a prayer to withdraw the proceedings in H.M.O.P No. 124 of 2016 from the file of Principle Subordinate Court, Tindivanam and to transfer the same on the file of Sub Court, Tamabaram.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Even though notice was served on 03.05.2017, there was no representation, again the matter was posted on 06.06.2017, none appeared on behalf of the respondent and therefore it was posted for orders on 31.07.2017.

¶10

Today the matter is taken up for consideration, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner/Wife is resident of Pallikarani, Chennai. The respondent/Husband filed an H.M.O.P No.124 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Tindivanam for divorce. The petitioner is a resident of Chennai, she has to look after her son as well as daughter and to take care of old age mother, and its presence at Chennai is very much required for all days.

¶11

Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, permits the wife to initiate matrimonial proceedings before the Court in whose jurisdiction she is residing at the time of institution of

¶12

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

¶13

proceedings.

¶14

The petitioner has produced sufficient materials justifying the transfer. In fact, there is nothing on record suspecting the bonafides in filing this transfer petition.

¶15

Considering distance and the physical inconvenience caused to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the transfer petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings in H.M.O.P No. 124 of 2016 is withdrawn from the file of Principle Subordinate Court, Tindivanam and the same is transferred to the file of Sub Court, Tambaram. The Sub Court, Tambaram is directed to renumber the H.M.O.P No. 124 of 2016 and conduct the proceedings on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶16

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
bsm
To
1) The Principle Subordinate Court,
Tindivanam.
2) The Sub Court,
Tamabaram.
+1 CC to Mr.V.S. Mannarsamy, Advocate sr 59963.
TR CMP NO.335 of 2017
AND CMP NO.6625 of 2017
SP(28/11/2017)

¶17

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

Gowri v. Deivanathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gowri v. Deivanathan

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

Pappathi Vs Dinesh Kumar

Kotieeswari(Deceased) Vs v. Kalaivanan

M/S. Manish Creations Vs M/S. Karikali Amman Spinning

B. Kamalabai Vs S. Prakash

Tmt.Manimegalai Vs Illaiyaraja

N.Eswaramoothy Vs Eswari.R