Dismissed

Marohina v. Satheesh Kumar

Madras HC19 Dec 2019TR CMP(MD)/485/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed petitions seeking transfer of pending family law proceedings from the Family Court, Madurai, to the Family Court, Hosur. The court held that transfer at the advanced trial stage would delay proceedings and denied the request due to existing directions for expeditious disposal.

What did the court decide?

Army Court, Madurai directed to give priority and dispose of the cases expeditiously on or before 15th March 2020.

Marohina Vs Satheesh Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

H.M.O.P.No.610 of 2017 and H.M.O.P.No.352 of 2019 pending on the

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.12.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.485 and 486 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.11337 and 11338 of 2019

¶7

Marohina

¶8

... Petitioner / Respondent / Wife in both the Tr.C.M.Ps.

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Satheesh Kumar ... Respondent / Petitioner / Husband in both the Tr.C.M.Ps.

¶11

COMMON PRAYER : These Petitions are filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw HMOP.Nos.610 of 2017 and 352 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, Madurai District and transfer the same to the Family Court, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

¶12

For Petitioner in both Tr.C.M.Ps : Mr.V.Suresh Kanna For Respondent in both Tr.C.M.Ps. : Mr.D.Senthil

¶13

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶14

These applications have been filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.610 of 2017 and H.M.O.P.No.352 of 2019 pending on the file of the Family Court, Madurai, to the Family Court, Hosur at Krishnagiri District. While H.M.O.P.No.610 of 2017 was filed by the husband seeking divorce, H.M.O.P.No.352 of 2019 has been filed by the wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

¶15

2.It is seen from the records, particularly, the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Family Court, at Madurai, on 25.10.2019 that both the cases are pending at the advance stage of trial and are posted for cross examination of the respondent in H.M.O.P.No.610 of 2017.

¶16

3.Though the wife is a resident of Bangalore, she has chosen to file the restitution petition in H.M.O.P.No.352 of 2019 before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

1/2

¶18

H.M.O.P.No.610 of 2017 and H.M.O.P.No.352 of 2019 pending on the

¶19

Family Court at Madurai. I do not find that the transfer of the proceedings at this stage would be in the interest of both the parties. Admittedly, there is a direction by this Court made in C.R.P.(MD)No.870 of 2019, dated 17.06.2019, for expeditious disposal of the HMOPs. Any transfer now made would only delay the proceedings further. Therefore, I do not see any justification on the request of the petitioner / wife, who had appeared before the Family Court, Madurai for more than two years, to seek to transfer the cases to Krishnagiri. Hence, both these Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. The Family Court, Madurai is directed to give priority to the H.M.O.P.Nos.610 of 2017 and 352 of 2019 and dispose of the same expeditiously at any rate on or before 15^th March, 2020.

¶20

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

¶24

The Judge

¶25

The Family Court, Madurai, Madurai District.

¶26

+1 CC to M/s.D.SENTHIL, Advocate ( SR-106111[F] dated 20/12/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.D.SENTHIL, Advocate ( SR-106110[F] dated 20/12/2019 )

¶27

Tr.C.M.P.(MD)Nos.485 and 486 of 2019 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.11337 and 11338 of 2019 19.12.2019

¶28

rj2 SDS/03.01.2020/2P-4C

¶29

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

¶30

2/2

Marohina v. Satheesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marohina v. Satheesh Kumar

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

S.Agentha, Vs Gnanaprakasam

Petchiammal,(Aged 55 Years), Vs R. Perumal. (Aged 66 Years)

Manjula, Vs Sirajinisha Begam

Rajendran Vs Thanagaraj

Vadivel Vs Senthil Arumugam

Palani Vs The Inspector of Police