Partly allowed

Soundar v. Uma Parameswari

Madras HC28 Apr 2017TR CMP(MD)/139/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court dismissed a transfer petition seeking to move family court proceedings from Tirunelveli to Madurai. The court noted the relevant petition had been disposed of ex parte and reserved liberty for the petitioner to seek transfer if that order is set aside, criticising the lower court for a lack of pragmatic approach.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition dismissed but liberty reserved to apply for transfer if the exparte order in the underlying proceeding is set aside.

Soundar Vs Uma Parameswari — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.04.2017 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶3

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.139 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.3156 of 2017

¶4

Soundar ... Petitioner/Respondent Vs.

¶5

Uma Parameswari ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶6

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw and transfer the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.260 of 2016 pending on the file of the Family Court, Tirunelveli to the Family Court, Madurai or any other competent Court at Madurai.

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

It is stated that H.M.O.P.NO.260 of 2016 filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Tirunelveli was allowed exparte on 17.02.2017. An application filed by the husband seeking to set aside the said exparte order is pending before the Family Court, Tirunelveli.

¶9

It is also not in dispute that H.M.O.P.No.127 of 2015 filed by the husband seeking divorce is pending on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. The request of the wife for transfer of the said H.M.O.P. from the Family Court, Madurai to the Family Court, Tirunelveli has been rejected by this Court in Tr.C.M.P. (MD)NO.312 of 2016. It is stated that in the said H.M.O.P.No.127 of 2015, the wife was set exparte and she has also filed an application to set aside the said exparte order.

¶10

In the light of the above facts, now that H.M.O.P.No.260 of 2016 has been disposed of, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed, reserving a liberty for the petitioner to seek transfer, if the exparte order in H.M.O.P.No.260 of 2016 is set aside by the Family Court, Tirunelveli. The Family Court, Tirunelveli would have done well to adopt a pragmatic approach in the light of the circumstances. The pendency of the petition for divorce and the request of the wife to transfer the petition to the Family Court, Tirunelveli has been rejected by this Court must https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have been taken note of. It would have been in the interest of justice, if the Family Court had not hurried into passing an order of restitution because of the absence of husband for one hearing.

¶11

¶12

No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶13

Sd/-

¶14

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶15

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

¶17

1.The Family Court, Tirunelveli.

¶18

2.The Family Court, Madurai.

¶19

+1cc to Mr.K.Vamanan,Advocate,SR.54962

¶20

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.139 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.3156 of 2017 28.04.2017

¶21

SSL

¶22

kk/MMS/10.05.2017-2P-4C

¶23

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

Soundar v. Uma Parameswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soundar v. Uma Parameswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Karuthammal Vs R. Kasammal

The Managing Director Vs Soosai Selvan @ Selva

Cholamandalam Ms General Vs Thirumurugan

Chandrakala Vs Suresh Kumar

M. Krishnamoorthy Vs K. Pondeepankar

The Deputy Director Vs M/S.Ponnusamy Nadar