Allowed

Jeyabrindha, v. Sathish Rajakumar

Madras HC10 Apr 2018TR CMP(MD)/130/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a transfer petition filed by the wife to move a divorce maintenance case from the Family Court, Dindigul, to the Family Court, Sivagangai. The transfer was granted via media to balance accessibility for the dependent petitioner and her child.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of H.M.O.P. No.34 of 2018 from Family Court, Dindigul to Family Court, Sivagangai with directions for record transmission.

Jeyabrindha, Vs Sathish Rajakumar — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 10.04.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN

¶6

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.130 of 2018 and C.M.P(MD)No. 2869 of 2018

¶7

Jeyabrindha ... Petitioner/Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Sathish Rajakumar ... Respondent/ Petitioner

¶10

PRAYER:- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, praying to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court at Dindigul, Dindigul District and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Sivagangai, Sivagangai District or any other court.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.R.Udhayakumar For respondent : Mr.A.Hariharan

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner / wife seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2018 from the file of the Family Court, Family Court at Dindigul, Dindigul District and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court at Sivagangai, Sivagangai District.

¶14

The averments made by the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 29.08.2014 as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, they lived together as joined family at Dindigul and they are blessed with one female child. During the marital life, the petitioner was put to harassment by the respondent and his family members by demanding additional dowry. Subsequently, the respondent herein / husband of the petitioner has filed H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2018 before the Family Court, Dindigul, seeking divorce with false allegations. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent being a resident of Dindigul has filed the above petition at the Family Court, Dindigul, whereas the petitioner is residing at Sivagangai along https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with her aged parents and as she is depending upon her aged parents, it is very difficult for her to travel from Sivagangai to Dindigul along with her 2 ½ years old child for attending each and every

¶15

¶16

hearing of the case.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the petition.

¶18

Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. Both the counsels agreed that by way of via media, they agreed to transfer the case in the middle of the two district.

¶19

The above said submission made by either side is recorded. Considering the above submission, I am of the opinion that the case may be transferred to the Family Court at Sivagangai. Hence, I am inclined to allow this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with the following directions:

¶20

i) The learned Judge, Family Court, Dindigul is directed to transmit the entire records in H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2018 to the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶21

ii) The learned Judge, Family Court, Sivagangai after obtaining the records on transfer, is directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.34 of 2018 on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months thereafter.

¶22

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar (P&A)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27

The Judge, Family Court, Dindigul.

¶28

The Judge, Family Court, Sivagangai.

¶29

1 CC TO Mr.R.UDHAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 60847 + 1 CC TO Mr.A.HARIHARAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 60545

¶30

PJL

¶31

TE/JC/SAR-2 : 27/04/2018 : 2P/5C

¶32

TR. C.M.P(MD).No.130 of 2018 10.04.2018

¶33

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

Jeyabrindha, v. Sathish Rajakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeyabrindha, v. Sathish Rajakumar

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

K.Gopika, Aged 29 Years, Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

K.Gopika, Aged 29 Years, Vs S.Srinivasa Raja

Ilavarasi Vs S.Gobi

S.Sivaraj M.Tech.M.B.a. Vs K.Kalaiselvi, M.a.B.Ed.,M.Phil

Sahitha Begum Vs a. Innasiraj

Thamari Vs S.Leo Premkumar