Allowed

M. Valarmathi v. a. Subburaj

Madras HC21 Jul 2017TR CMP(MD)/207/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer petition filed to shift a divorce case from Chennai to Sivakasi to alleviate financial burden for a woman with a young child. Court deemed notice served due to unclaimed delivery. Petition allowed under Section 24 CPC by prioritizing woman's convenience, directing record transmission to lower court.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of H.M.O.P.No.1610 of 2017 from III Family Court, Chennai to Subordinate Court, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District; records to be transmitted within two weeks.

M. Valarmathi Vs a. Subburaj — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 21.07.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶6

TR. C.M.P(MD).No.207 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.4757 of 2017

¶7

M.Valarmathi ... Petitioner/Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

A.Subburaj ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

PRAYER:- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, praying to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.1610 of 2017, on the file of III Family Court at Chennai and transfer the same to the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶11

For Petitioner :Mr.G.Marimuthu

¶12

For Respondent :No appearance

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.1610 of 2017, from the file of III Family Court at Chennai to the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District.

¶15

Though notice has been served on the respondent, he has not appeared in person or through counsel. Heard Mr.G.Marimuthu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶16

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 08.06.2012 at Pudhusurangdi Nadar Uravinmurai Marriage Hall, Royapuram, Chennai-13 as per Hindu Rites and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Customs. At the time of marriage, 16 3/4 sovereign of gold jewels and Rs.60,000/- cash were given to the respondent as dowry. The respondent is running a small stationery store at Chennai. Due to

¶17

¶18

wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to a female child viz., Yogalakshmi.

¶19

The learned Counsel further submitted that after the delivery of female child, the attitude of the petitioner's husband and character have been changed and he is started to avoid the petitioner directly and indirectly and all the efforts taken by the family members ended in vain. Now the petitioner is living with her mother along her 8 months old female child.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner's husband now filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P. No.1610 of 2017 before III Family Court, Chennai, stating false and mischievous reasons. The petitioner has passed only 8^th standard and she has no income to meet the travel expenses from Chennai to Sivakasi.

¶21

Notice sent to the respondent through Court as well as privately has been returned as unclaimed. The Honourable Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Hiralal and Others reported in (1996)7 Supreme Court Cases 523, held that in cases where notices were sent to the correct address and returned with an endorsement “not available in the house”, “house locked” and “shop closed”, notice must be deemed to have been served. In view of the above decision, notice in this case is not necessary to the respondent, since it was unclaimed by him.

¶22

I am satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition. It is well settled law that convenience of woman is to be taken into consideration at the time of considering transfer applications as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 2008(9)SCC 353 (Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi and another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta). I am inclined to allow this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶23

i) The learned Judge, III Family Court, Chennai, is directed to transmit the entire records in H.M.O.P.No.1610 of 2017 to the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶24

ii) the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District, after obtaining the records on transfer, is directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.1610 of 2017 as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.(MD) No.4757 of 2017 is closed.

¶28

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CSI) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶29

To, 1. The Family Court Judge, III Family Court, Chennai. 2. The Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District. +One cc to Mr.G.Marimuthu, Advocate, SR.No.66881 ssl/rmk RL/4C/3P/SKN/RSK/SAR1/27/7/2017

¶30

TR C.M.P(MD).No.207 of 2017 and C.M.P(MD)No.4757 of 2017

¶31

21.07.2017

¶32

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

M. Valarmathi v. a. Subburaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Valarmathi v. a. Subburaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The District Collector Vs Jeeva

S.Sangilimuthu Vs Manoj Kumar

Rita Vs R.Rajkumar

Branch Manager Vs Shanthi

S.Arunachalam Vs Alexander

The Branch Manager Vs a.G.Rajasekaran