Allowed

Celine Preetha v. Maria Dominic Raj

Madras HC28 Jul 2017TR CMP/788/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a transfer civil miscellaneous petition regarding a divorce proceeding instituted by the respondent at the Family Court, Puducherry. The petitioner, residing in Chennai, sought transfer to Sub Court, Tambaram due to physical inconvenience. The court applied Section 24 CPC and allowed the transfer.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in O.S.No.39 of 2016 transferred from the file of Family Court, Puducherry to the file of Sub Court, Tambaram for disposal on merits.

Celine Preetha Vs Maria Dominic Raj — Matrimonial and Divorce | 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.788 of 2016
AND CMP NO.20016 of 2017
Celine Preetha ... Petitioner
versus
Maria Dominic Raj ... Respondent

¶7

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw and transfer the above OS.No. 39 of 2016 filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Puducherry to the Sub Court, Tambaram.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy For Respondent : Mr.V.Balamurugane

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner has filed this transfer petition with a prayer

¶11

to withdraw O.S.No.39 of 2016 from the file of Family Court,

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

Puducherry and transfer the same to the file of Sub-Court, Tambaram.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶16

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶17

The petitioner is a resident of Kandanchavadi, Chennai.

¶18

The respondent instituted a proceedings for divorce before the Family

¶19

Court, Puducherry. According to the petitioner, she is residing at Chennai and as such, it would not be possible for her to travel to Puducherry, for the purpose of defending the proceedings in OS No.39 of 2016.

¶20

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

¶21

permits the wife to initiate matrimonial proceedings before the Court in

¶22

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

¶23

The petitioner has produced sufficient materials

¶24

justifying the transfer. In fact, there is nothing on record suspecting the bonafides in filing this transfer petition. Considering the physical

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

the transfer petition deserves to be allowed.

¶28

Considering the physical inconvenience caused to the

¶29

petitioner, the proceedings in O.S.No.39 of 2016 is withdrawn from the

¶30

file of Family Court, Puducherry and is transferred to the file of Sub Court, Tambaram, for disposal on merits.

¶31

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of
accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
28.07.2017
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
bsm/tk
To
1) The Family Court,
Puducherry.
2) The Sub Court,
Tambaram .

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.GOVINDARAJ, J.

bsm/tk

TR CMP NO.788 of 2016
AND CMP NO.20016 of 2017

¶37

28.07.2017

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

Celine Preetha v. Maria Dominic Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Celine Preetha v. Maria Dominic Raj

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

M.H.Abusama Bevi@Sabina Vs Mohamed Shaliq

Krishnasamy Ramesh Vs Smt.Subramanian Artheeswari

P. Sugashini Vs K. Parthasarathi