Allowed

P. Sugashini v. K. Parthasarathi

Madras HC28 Jul 2017TR CMP/394/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a single bench transfer order under Section 24 CPC where the petitioner, a mother of young children including one with autism, sought to withdraw family court proceedings in Erode and transfer them to Chennai. The Court found the petitioner’s justification sufficient.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in F.C.O.P No. 318 of 2016 withdrawn from Family Court, Erode and transferred to Second Additional Family Court, Chennai to be tried along with H.M.O.P No. 4431 of 2016.

P. Sugashini Vs K. Parthasarathi — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED:28.07.2017

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶6

TR CMP NO.394 of 2017
AND CMP NO.7788 of 2017
P.Sugashini ... Petitioner
versus
K.Parthasarathi ... Respondent

¶7

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw of F.C.O.P No. 318 of 2016 pending on the file of Family Court, Erode and Transfer the same to the file of the IInd Additional Family Court, Madras for being tried together with H.M.O.P No. 4431 of 2016.

¶8

For Petitioner : Ms.D.Uvarani For Respondent : No appearance

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner has filed this transfer petition with a prayer

¶11

to withdraw the proceedings in F.C.O.P No. 318 of 2016 from the file

¶12

of Family Court, Erode and transfer the same to the file of Second Additional Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with H.M.O.P No.

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

¶15

4431 of 2016.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, though

¶17

notice was served, none appeared on behalf of the respondent.

¶18

The petitioner is a resident of Chennai. The respondent

¶19

instituted a proceedings before the Family Court, Erode. According to

¶20

the petitioner, she is residing at Chennai along with her two children

¶21

aged 3 years and one year respectively and one of her child is suffering

¶22

autism and as such, it would not be possible for her to travel from Chennai to Erode. Further, the petitioner has also filed a petition for restitution of Conjugal Rights, before the Second Additional Family Court, Chennai.

¶23

Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, permits the

¶24

wife to initiate matrimonial proceedings before the Court in whose

¶25

jurisdiction she is residing at the time of institution of proceedings.

¶26

The petitioner has produced sufficient materials

¶27

justifying the transfer. In fact, there is nothing on record suspecting the bonafides in filing this transfer petition. Considering the day to day care to be taken for young children and the physical inconvenience

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in caused to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the transfer

¶29

¶30

petition deserves to be allowed.

¶31

Considering the facts and peculiar circumstances of the

¶32

case, the proceedings in F.C.O.P.No.318 of 2016 is withdrawn from the

¶33

file of Family Court, Erode and the same is transferred to the file of

¶34

Second Additional Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with

¶35

H.M.O.P No.4431 of 2016, which is filed for restitution of conjugal rights. The Second Additional Family Court, Chennai is directed to renumber the Original Petition and proceed further, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶36

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of . No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 28.07.2017 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No

¶37

bsm/tk

¶38

¶39

1. The Family Court, Erode.

¶40

1. The Second Additional Family Court, Madras.

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.GOVINDARAJ, J.

bsm/tk

TR CMP NO.394 of 2017
AND CMP NO.7788 of 2017

¶46

28.07.2017

¶47

http://www.judis.nic.in

P. Sugashini v. K. Parthasarathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Sugashini v. K. Parthasarathi

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

H.a.Abdul Jabbar Vs the Registrar

M.Ramakrishnan Vs the Commissioner

S.K.Raman Vs D.John

Celine Preetha Vs Maria Dominic Raj

M.H.Abusama Bevi@Sabina Vs Mohamed Shaliq

Krishnasamy Ramesh Vs Smt.Subramanian Artheeswari