Dismissed

J.Sathish v. v.Preethu

Madras HC6 Aug 2019TR CMP(MD)/304/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition for transfer of a divorce proceeding from Virudhunagar Sub-Court to Thoothukudi District Court. The court rejected the petitioner's claim of harassment and upheld the wife's right to file a second petition on a different cause of action, finding the transfer unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of proceedings dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

J.Sathish Vs v.Preethu — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.304 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.08.2019 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

¶4

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.304 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.7050 of 2019

¶5

D.J.Sathish : Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

V.Preethu : Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District and transfer the same to the Principal District Court, Thoothukudi.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.N.Rajamohamed For Respondent : No Appearance

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This petition has been preferred by the petitioner/husband to transfer the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2019, on the file of the Sub-Court, Virudhunagar District to the file of Principal District Court, Thoothukudi.

¶12

2.The petitioner is a resident of Thoothukudi. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 17.04.2017 in accordance with Hindu Rites and customs. It is also stated by the petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent jointly filed a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is also admitted by the petitioner in the petition itself that by misfortune and because of the inability of the petitioner to appear before the Sub Court Kovilpatti, where the petition in H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2017 for divorce by mutual consent was presented, the same was dismissed. The petitioner contended that the respondent has filed an appeal as against the order dismissing the petition in H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2017, on the file of Sub Court, Kovilpatti.

¶13

3.It is stated further that the respondent after filing the appeal in H.M.C.M.A.No.12 of 2019 as against the order in H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2017, has presented another petition in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2019, on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner stated that the present petition filed by the respondent

¶14

1/3

¶15

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.304 of 2019

¶16

is nothing, but a re-litigation and it has to be stayed under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner described the proceedings that is now pending in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2019 as not maintainable and submitted that it is filed only to harass the petitioner/husband.

¶17

4.It is only on the ground that the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2019 is not maintainable, the present petition is filed.

¶18

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, when confronted with a question whether the petitioner/ husband is agreeable for giving divorce in the present proceedings that has now been initiated by the wife, submitted that the husband will not agree for divorce due to change of circumstances.

¶19

6.The petitioner has admitted that he has filed a petition jointly along with his wife seeking divorce by mutual consent in H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2017 and states that he could not appear by misfortune or inability. The said petition was dismissed only on the ground of non appearance of the petitioner. This Court is unable to find any bonafides in the present petition making allegations against the wife for filing another petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2019, merely because the respondent has filed an appeal and is pending in H.M.C.M.A.No.12 of 2019, on the file of Principal District Court, Thoothukudi.

¶20

7.The maintainability of the petition in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2019 cannot be questioned. The second petition filed by the wife is on a different cause of action and she is entitled to prosecute the same without prosecuting H.M.C.M.A.No.12 of 2019, which is pending at her instance. By his conduct, the petitioner alone is harassing the wife by driving here to file another petition without any reasonable cause.

¶21

8.In that view of the matter, the only ground urged by the petitioner does not hold water and this Court find no ground to transfer the proceedings.

¶22

9.As a result this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

/TRUE COPY/

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.304 of 2019

¶30

¶31

1.The Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar.

¶32

2.The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

¶33

Madurai. (2 copies)

¶34

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.304 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)No.7050 of 2019

¶35

06.08.2019

¶36

JM/27.08.2019/3P/4C

¶37

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

¶38

3/3

J.Sathish v. v.Preethu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Sathish v. v.Preethu

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

Radha Bai Vs Ramakrishnan

N.Radha Bai Vs Mrs.Maruthambal

Samson Debase Vs Anbiah Fernando @ X.a.Datross

M/S. National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Chinnathal

Rajambal Vs Navaneetha Krishnan

Madasamy Vs Soundarapandian