Allowed

Kalaiselvi v. Uthayakumar

Madras HC11 Oct 2018TR CMP/616/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a transfer petition to move a civil miscellaneous proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights from the Principal District Family Court to the Sub-Court to be tried jointly with a pending divorce case.

What did the court decide?

The transfer civil miscellaneous petition was allowed; HMOP No.963 of 2018 was transferred to Sub-Court, Mettupalayam for joint trial; connected CMP No.15037 of 2018 was closed.

Kalaiselvi Vs Uthayakumar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 09.10.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.10.2018

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

¶4

Transfer CMP.No. 616 of 2018 and CMP.No.15037 of 2018 Kalaiselvi ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

Utayakumar ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer :- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 24 of CPC to withdraw and transfer in HMOP No.963 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Family Court, Coimbatore to the Sub-Court, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District to be tried along with HMOP No.66 of 2018 to try the same for effectual adjudication. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kalimuthu

¶8

For Respondent : Mr.S.Gowsik Sundar

¶9

ORDER

¶10

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

¶11

2.The respondent has levied HMOP No.963 of 2018 for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner and the same is pending on the file of the Principal District Family Court, Coimbatore. The petitioner has levied divorce case against the respondent in HMOP No.66 of 2018 and the same is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Mettupalayam.

¶12

3.Seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceeding of the respondent to Sub-Court, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore, the transfer petition has come to be laid by the petitioner on the footing that she is depending upon her aged parents, who are unable to accompany her to attend the proceeding at Coimbatore Court on account of their ill health and also the petitioner is finding it difficult and inconvenient in attending the proceeding at Coimbatore Court, considering the distance between her residence and Coimbatore Court and also that she would incur heavy expenses with reference to the same and accordingly, contended that considering the two proceedings as regards the matrimonial issues between the parties pending in different forums, sought for the consolidation of the two proceedings and prayed for the conduct of the two proceedings at Mettupalayam Sub-Court.

¶13

4.The respondent has contended that the transfer petition has been filed only to harass him and cause hardship and therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the transfer petition. Further, according to him, considering the fact that the petitioner is working at Coimbatore, contended that the

¶14

continuation of the proceeding at Coimbatore would not cause any loss to the petitioner.

¶15

5.However, the abovesaid contention is repudiated by the petitioner's counsel contending that she was employed at Coimbatore only at the time of the marriage and not at present. According to the petitioner's counsel, the petitioner is not working presently at Coimbatore. To evidence that the petitioner is presently working at Coimbatore, there is no material forthcoming.

¶16

6.Be that as it may, two proceedings as regards the marital issues of the parties are pending in different forums, accordingly, as rightly argued, the consolidation of two proceedings and the determination of the same by one and the same Court would be beneficial to both the parties and by way of the same, conflict of decisions could also be avoided. Furthermore, the parties also would be required to adduce common evidence. Therefore, the cause of justice would be advanced, if both the proceedings are clubbed together and determined by one and the same court.

¶17

7.The petitioner has putforth certain inconvenience and hardship in attending the proceeding at Coimbatore Court and the same could not be easily discarded. Furthermore, the respondent is having the residence at Coimbatore Taluk and considering the distance between his residence and Metturpalayam, it is seen that by way of the proceeding being conducted at Mettupalayam, the respondent would not be seriously prejudiced and put to any hardship. Furthermore, the respondent also would be required to defend the proceeding laid by the petitioner pending on the file of the Mettupalayam Court. In all, it is seen that the petitioner has made out a sufficient cause for effecting the transfer as prayed for.

¶18

8.Resultantly, HMOP No.963 of 2018 is withdrawn from the file of the Principal District Family Court, Coimbatore and transferred to the file of the Sub-Court, Mettupalayam Coimbatore District for joint trial along with HMOP No.66 of 2018 as per law.

¶19

Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed. Consequently, connected CMP No.15037 of 2018 is closed.

11.10.2018

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No

sms

1.The Principal District Family Court, Coimbatore. 2.The Sub-Court, Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District

¶26

T.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶27

sms

¶28

Pre-delivery Order made in Transfer CMP.No. 616 of 2018 and

¶29

CMP.No.15037 of 2018

¶30

11.10.2018

Kalaiselvi v. Uthayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalaiselvi v. Uthayakumar

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

Duraisamy Vs S.Saravanakumar

Lakshmi Vs Giri Babu

Manokaran Vs Kaliyaperumal

Kamalam Vs Muruganraj

O.Anthonyamma Vs B.Mariyamma

Sucharita Mukherjee Vs Santhosh Kumar