Allowed

Ushadevi v. Raju @ Rajagopal

Madras HC28 Jun 2017TR CMP(MD)/183/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a transfer petition filed under Section 24 CPC to withdraw proceedings from the Sub-Court at Mayiladuthurai and transfer them to the Principal Sub-Court at Tiruchirappalli, overriding the prayer for Family Court transfer due to the husband's travel distance.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2017 from Sub-Court Mayiladuthurai to Principal Sub-Court Tiruchirappalli.

Ushadevi Vs Raju @ Rajagopal — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED 28.06.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.183 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.4192 of 2017

¶7

Usha Devi .. Petitioner/Respondent

¶8

vs.

¶9

Raju @ Rajagopal .. Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code praying this Court to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2017,from the file of Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai and transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Trichy.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhakar For Respondent : Mr.K.Sivabalan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The wife, who is the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2017, on the file of Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai, seeks transfer of the same to the file of Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶14

2.The transfer is sought for mainly on the ground of convenience, since the wife is a resident of Tiruchirappalli.

¶15

3.Considering the distance between Mayiladuthurai and Tiruchirappalli and the convenience of the wife, I deem it fit to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2017 from the file of Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai and transfer the same to the file of Principal SubCourt, Tiruchirappalli. Though the prayer sought for is to transfer to Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, considering the fact that the parties have to appear before the Family Court for every hearing and that the husband has to travel almost 110 Kms,I deem it fit to transfer the proceedings to Sub-Court, where the appearance of the parties are not necessary. Accordingly, this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the Petition in H.M.O.P.No.38 of 2017 is withdrawn from the file of Sub-Court,

¶16

¶17

Mayiladuthurai and transferred to the file of Principal Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli.The Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai is directed to despatch the records to the Principal Sub-Court, Tiruchirappalli within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(P&A)

¶20

/True copy/

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

¶23

1.The Principal subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

¶24

2.The Subordinate Judge,

¶25

Mayiladuthurai.

¶26

+1 cc to Mr.K.Prabhakar , Advocate in SR.No. 62310

¶27

vsn

¶28

AE/JC/SAR4/05.07.2017/2P/4C

¶29

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.183 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.4192 of 2017 28.06.2017

¶30

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

Ushadevi v. Raju @ Rajagopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ushadevi v. Raju @ Rajagopal

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

The Manager, Vs v.Kalimuthu

P.S.Lakshmi Vs B.J.Mahendran @ Madhan

V. Malarkodi Vs S. Selvaraj@Selvan

Kubendran Vs Vimala

A.Mary Remona Vs N.Christhuraj

Maheswari Vs Athithya Pandian