Allowed

P. Subashini v. Minor. Aarav and Minor. Aarna

Madras HC9 Oct 2018TR CMP/679/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows transfer petitions to move matrimonial and maintenance cases from Thiruvannamalai to Kumbakonam courts. The court consolidated proceedings, considering the petitioner's residence, child-care duties, and the respondent's financial means, to avoid hardship and conflicting rulings.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal and transfer of HMOP No.63 of 2018 and GWOP No.5 of 2018 from Thiruvannamalai to Additional District & Sessions Court, Kumbakonam.

P. Subashini Vs Minor. Aarav and Minor. Aarna — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 03.10.2018

¶3

PRONOUNCED ON : 09.10.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

¶6

Transfer CMP.Nos.679 & 594 of 2018

¶7

P.Subashini ... Petitioner in both Tr.CMPs. Vs.

¶8

Minor Aarav and Minor Aarna both are twin children aged about 4 years and representated by their Father/Guardian P.Palaniappan S/o. V.R.Parivel No.21/8, Pei Gopura 4^th Street, Tiruvannamalai – 606 601. ... Respondent in Tr.CMP.No.679 of 2018 P.Palaniappan ... Respondent in Tr.CMP.No.594 of 2018

¶9

Prayer in Tr.CMP.No.679 of 2018 :- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 24 of CPC to withdraw the petition in GWOP No.5 of 2018 pending on the file of the Hon'ble District & Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai and the same may be transferred to the Hon'ble Additional District & Sessions Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶10

Prayer in Tr.CMP.No.594 of 2018 :- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Section 24 of CPC to withdraw the petition in HMOP No.63 of 2018 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai and the same may be transferred to the Hon'ble Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kasirajan in both the petitions For Respondent : Mr.C.Prakasam in both the petitions

¶12

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

¶13

COMMON ORDER

¶14

The wife is the petitioner and the husband is the respondent in both Transfer CMPs.

¶15

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

¶16

3.It is found that seeking maintenance for herself and her two children, the petitioner has laid the case against the respondent in M.C.No.21 of 2018 and the same is pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam. It is further seen that the respondent has laid a divorce case against the petitioner and the same is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Thiruvannamalai. Furthermore, it is also seen that the respondent has laid GWOP No.5 of 2018 against the petitioner and the same is pending on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvannamalai.

¶17

4.Seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceeding and the guardian OP filed by the respondent to the Courts at Kumbakonam, the transfer petitions have been laid by the petitioner contending that she is unemployed and residing at Kumbakonam and depending upon her aged parents and finding it difficult and inconvenient in attending the proceedings at Thiruvannamalai Courts, considering the long distance between her residence and Thiruvannamalai Court and further stating that the respondent being a man of means would not be prejudiced, if the proceedings were transferred to Kumbakonam Court, accordingly, has come forward with the transfer petitions.

¶18

5.The respondent has resisted the transfer petitions preferred by the petitioner and contended that the petitioner on her own accord left the matrimonial house and living with her boy friends at Kumbakonam and not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent and also not entitled to seek the transfer of the proceedings laid by the respondent to the Courts at Kumbakonam and further, according to him, the petitioner's father is a police officer and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in attending the proceedings at Thiruvannamalai Court and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the transfer petitions.

¶19

6.During the course of the arguments, the respondent's counsel put forth that a midway Court may be chosen by the Court for the convenience of both the parties and accordingly, suggested that all the proceedings may be transferred to the Court at Cuddalore or Chidambaram or Virudhachalam as the case may be. However, the petitioner's counsel contended that considering the inability of the petitioner in travelling alone

¶20

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

¶21

and also her need to look after her two school going children and also the threat that she may experience at the hands of the respondent in the event of travelling alone to the different Courts and the other inconvenience and hardship that she may be put to in defending the proceedings at Thruvannamalai Court, accordingly, prayed for the transfer of the proceedings from Thiruvannamalai Court to Kumbakonam Court.

¶22

7.It is found that the children are residing with the petitioner and therefore, it could be seen that the petitioner would be required to look after the children. Now, the two proceedings laid by the respondent are pending on the file of the Courts at Thiruvannamalai. The distance between Kumbakonam and Thruvannamalai is not on the lesser side and therefore, it is found that the petitioner may be put to inconvenience and hardship in attending the proceedings at Thiruvannamalai Court. Furthermore, even as per the case of the respondent, he is having independent means to conduct the proceedings, if the same were to be transferred to the Court at Kumbakonam as prayed for by the petitioner.

¶23

8.Materials placed on record also go to show that the proceedings had been taken at the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad for divorce by mutual consent between the parties. However, the same did not fructify and with reference to the same, the parties are making allegations against each other. Be that as it may, it is seen that the parties are at different poles in their relationship to each other. That apart, it is also noted that the respondent had moved the High Court for seeking the transfer of the maintenance case from the file of the Kumbakonam Court to Thiruvannamalai Court in Crl.O.P.No.18578 of 2018 and the same is pending.

¶24

9.In all, considering the rival contentions projected by the parties with reference to their respective claims, it is seen that the respondent is having adequate means to conduct the proceedings at Kumbakonam Courts. On the other hand, the petitioner, being a lady and had to look after the two children, would find it difficult and inconvenient in attending the proceedings at Thiruvannamalai Courts and furthermore, it is also seen that seeking maintenance from the respondent, she had already levied the proceeding at Kumbakonam Court as abovenoted. In such view of the matter, it is seen that the respondent would be required to attend the abovesaid proceeding at Kumbakonam Court and in such view of the matter, if the proceedings laid by him at Thriuvannamalai Courts are also transferred to Kumbakonam Courts, by way of the same, it is found that no serious prejudice, as such, would be caused to the respondent. The respondent, though, has filed a counter in the present matter, has not put forth any apprehension to his body and life at the

¶25

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

¶26

hands of the petitioner, in any event of his proceedings being transferred to the Court at Kumbakonam.

¶27

10.Inasmuch as the various proceedings are pending in various forums between the parties and common issues are found to be involved in respect of the proceedings one way or the other, in my considered opinion, the consolidation of the proceedings and the determination of the same by one and the same Court would be beneficial to the parties, and by way of the same, conflict of decisions could be avoided. Furthermore, the parties also, if need be, would be required to adduce common evidence in all the proceedings. Thus, it is found that the cause of justice would be advanced, if all the proceedings are consolidated and determined by one and the same Court.

¶28

11.In the light of the above factors, HMOP No.63 of 2018 pending on the file of the Sub – Court, Thiruvannamalai and the GWOP No.5/2018 pending on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvannamalai are withdrawn and all the abovesaid proceedings are transferred to the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court, Kumbakonam for disposal as per law.

¶29

Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To

¶31

1.The District and Sessions Court, Thiruvannamalai.

¶32

2.The Additional District & Sessions Court, Kumbakonam.

¶33

3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam.

¶34

4.The Sub – Court, Thiruvannamalai. +1cc to Mr.S.Kasirajan, Advocate, S.R.No.69415 +1cc to Mr.C.Prakasam, Advocate, S.R.No.69975 +1cc to Mr.S.Kasirajan, Advocate, S.R.No.69414(12/12/2018)

¶35

Transfer CMP.Nos.679 & 594 of 2018

¶36

SKV(CO) GSP(02/11/2018)

¶37

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

¶38

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

P. Subashini v. Minor. Aarav and Minor. Aarna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Subashini v. Minor. Aarav and Minor. Aarna

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

R.Lalitha Vs P.v.Thulasiraman

Ramarajanm S/O Nallappa Vs Shanmugam

C.v.Karthikeyan Vs P.Subramanian

G. Karthiga @ G. Bhuvaneswari Vs R. Uadayakumar

N.Muthurajan Vs R.Muthu Jayalakshmi

A.V. Babuji @ Priya Vs N.M. Manibalan