Allowed

Vidhya v. P. Prabakaran

Madras HC6 Mar 2018TR CMP/686/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a transfer petition filed by a wife to move a matrimonial case from the Sub Court, Attur, to the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur. Relying on Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the transfer was granted, the original petition was withdrawn from Attur, case was transferred to Srivilliputhur, and appearances before the court were dispensed with until the trial commenced.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P.No.76 of 2017 transferred from Sub Court, Attur to Sub Court, Srivilliputhur. Parties' appearance dispensed with until trial.

Vidhya Vs P. Prabakaran — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.03.2018

¶2

CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tr.C.M.P. No.686 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.13543 of 2017

¶4

Vidhya ... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

P.Prabakaran ... Respondent

¶7

Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. praying to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.76 of 2017 pending before the Subordinate Court, Attur and transfer the same to the Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.E. Rajthilak

¶9

For Respondent : Mr.S.Kaithamalaikumaran

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The wife in a matrimonial proceedings has filed the above transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.76 of 2017 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Attur and transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur.

¶12

The respondent-husband has filed the above H.M.O.P.No.76 of 2017 under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the file of the Sub Court, Attur for dissolution of marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 23.02.2015.

¶13

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner-wife is having 1 1/2 years minor child in her custody and she is employed in Infosys, Mysore. The parents of the petitioner is living in Srivilliputhur. Therefore, if the matter is transferred to Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, it would be easy for the petitioner-wife to leave the child under the care of her parents and attend the Court proceedings. Admittedly, the respondent-husband is living in Australia. Though the said H.M.O.P was filed by him, he has not even attended the Court atleast once to contest the case. Hence, she sought for transfer.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials

¶15

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

¶16

available on record.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband seriously opposed to transfer the said H.M.O.P from Attur to Srivilliputhur.

¶18

Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondenthusband vehemently opposed the transfer, this Court taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-husband is living outside the country, he may not have any difficulty in contesting the case, be it Attur or Srivilliputhur, and also taking into account that Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act gives preference for the wife in respect of the place where she resides, it would be appropriate to transfer H.M.O.P.No.76 of 2017 from the file of Sub Court, Attur to the file of Sub Court, Srivilliputhur.

¶19

However, considering the fact that both the petitionerwife as well as the respondent-husband are living outside Srivilliputhur, their appearance before the Court is dispensed with till the commencement of trial and the parties are directed to be present once the trial has commenced.

¶20

With the above directions, the transfer petition is disposed of. H.M.O.P.No.76 of 2017 pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Attur is withdrawn and transferred the same to the file of Subordinate Court, Srivilliputhur. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

srn

¶24

¶25

The Sub Judge, Attur.

¶26

The Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur.

¶27

+1 cc to Mr.E.RajThilak Advocate sr 16964

¶28

+1 cc to Mr.S.Kaithamalai kumaran Advocate sr 16898

¶29

Tr.C.M.P. No.686 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.13543 of 2017

¶30

svi(co) aa05/04/2018

¶31

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

Vidhya v. P. Prabakaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidhya v. P. Prabakaran

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

M.P. Sivasamy Vs M.P. Palaniappan

N.Thevaraj Vs Nanjan (Died)

U. Shyamala Vs K. Prem Anand

Mathangi Rudhrakumar Vs Nirmalraj Samraj

G. Vigneshwari Vs G. Krishnakumar

T.T.Sandhya Vs K.Saravana Sundar