Allowed

S.Rajeswari v. R.Sriram

Madras HC3 Oct 2018TR CMP/572/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed transfer petitions to move a restitution of conjugal rights petition from the Family Court, Chennai, to the Sub-Court, Tambaram, for joint trial with a pending divorce petition to avoid conflicting decisions and hardships. Consequently, the connected transfer petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

HMOP No.2411 of 2018 withdrawn from Family Court, Chennai and transferred to Sub-Court, Tambaram for joint trial with HMOP No.467 of 2018.

S.Rajeswari Vs R.Sriram — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 28.09.2018

¶3

PRONOUNCED ON : 03.10.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

¶6

Transfer CMP.No.572 of 2018

¶7

and

¶8

CMP.No.13907 of 2018

¶9

Prayer :- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 24 of CPC to withdrawal of the petition in HMOP No.2411 of 2018 from the file of Hon'ble Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to the Hon'ble Sub Court, Tambaram, with a direction to try the same along with HMOP No.467 of 2018.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Radhakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.B.Srikrishnan

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner is the wife. The respondent is the husband.

¶13

2.All is not well qua the marital life of the petitioner and the respondent.

¶14

3.It is seen that the petitioner has levied divorce case against the respondent in HMOP No.467 of 2018 and the same is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Tambaram. The respondent has levied HMOP No.2411 of 2018 against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending on the file of the Family Court, Chennai.

¶15

4.Though the petitioner would claim that her case had been levied on 04.06.2018, according to the respondent, only after the institution of the proceeding by the respondent, the petitioner has levied the divorce case against him.

¶16

5.Putting forth certain inconvenience and hardship in attending the proceeding at Chennai Court, the petitioner has come forward with the transfer petition on the footing that the respondent would be no prejudiced in any manner, if both the proceedings are conducted at Sub-Court, Tambaram and also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contended that as the two proceedings are pending with

¶17

reference to the marital issues of the parties, the joint trail of the two proceeding at Sub Court, Tambaram would be beneficial to both the parties.

¶18

6.It is found that the petitioner is a resident of Ayanavaram, Chennai, similarly it is found that the respondent is a resident of Madambakkam. Considering the position that the two proceedings are in two different forums relating to the marital issues of the parties, in my considered opinion, the consolidation of the two proceedings by one and the same Court would be beneficial to both the parties and the same would avoid conflict of decisions. Furthermore, the parties would also be required to adduce common evidence in both the proceedings, if the two proceedings are jointly tried by one and the same Court. Thus, it is seen that cause of justice would be advanced, if the two proceedings are jointly tried and determined by one and the same Court.

¶19

7.The petitioner has put forth certain inconvenience and hardship in attending the proceeding at Chennai Court and no doubt, the same being contested by the respondent. Inasmuch as both the petitioner as well as the respondent are found to be the resident of Chennai and Madambakkam respectively, it is seen that the conduct of the two proceedings at Tambaram Court as such would not cause serious prejudice to the respondent. During the course arguments, the respondent's counsel would only contend that the counselling facility may not be available at Tambaram Court but it is seen that if the parties endeavour to reunite, it is always open to them to move the concerned Court for necessary conciliation and counselling with reference to the same as available under law. Hence, the contention of the respondent's counsel that counselling procedure would not be available at Tambaram Court as such cannot be readily accepted.

¶20

8.As abovenoted, considering the hardship of the petitioner in attending the proceeding at Chennai Court, she being a lady and considering that no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if the proceedings are conducted at Tambaram Court and also considering the position that the joint trial of the two proceedings would be beneficial to both the parties and advance the cause of justice, in all, HMOP No.2411 of 2018 is withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Chennai and transferred to the file of the Sub-Court, Tambaram for joint trial along with HMOP No.467 of 2018 as per law.

¶21

Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed. Consequently, connected CMP.No.13907 of 2018 is closed.

¶22

Sd/sms Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶23

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

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

¶27

2.The Judge, Sub-Court, Tambaram.

¶28

+2cc to Mr.B.Srikrishnan , Advocate SR.No. 67978

¶29

Transfer CMP.No.572 of 2018 and CMP.No.13907 of 2018

¶30

ASK(30/10/2018)

¶31

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

S.Rajeswari v. R.Sriram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Rajeswari v. R.Sriram

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

S.M. Gnanapriya Vs Sivabalan

Lavanya Vs Prabhu

Mrs.K.Jeseena Begam Vs Mr.M.Kalilrahman

His Holiness Head of Sri Kasi Vs B.Ramamurthy

Mrs.Maragathamanimala Vs Mr.B.Selvapandian

Manjula Vs Mahakrishnan