Dismissed

C.Teena Esther v. B. Cyril Kanagaraj

Madras HC27 Jan 2020TR CMP/43/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to transfer matrimonial proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights from Tiruppur District Court to Chennai Family Court. Court dismissed petition as petitioner's reasons (unemployment, training) are not valid grounds for transfer despite husband's residence in Tiruppur. Trial directed to conclude expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.43 of 2020 dismissed. Connected C.M.P.No.1188 of 2020 closed.

C.Teena Esther Vs B. Cyril Kanagaraj — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.01.2020

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶4

Transfer C.M.P.No.43 of 2020

¶5

C.Teena Esther

¶6

...Petitioner/ Respondent

¶7

vs.

¶8

B.Cyril Kanagaraj

¶9

...Respondent/ Petitioner

¶10

Tr.C.M.P. filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw I.D.O.P.No.56 of 2019 pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur and transfer the same to the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai.

¶11

The Petitioner, who is residing at Chennai, has come up with this Petition seeking transfer of I.D.O.P.No.56 of 2019 from the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur to the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai.

¶12

The Respondent/husband has filed the above I.D.O.P.No.56 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur, seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

¶13

According to the Petitioner/wife, she is unemployed and is presently undergoing Montessori training course in R.A.Puram, Chennai and that, the Respondent/husband is employed in a Private Company at Tiruppur. The Petitioner has sought transfer of the above proceedings on the only ground that, she has to take care of her age-old parents.

¶14

Knowing very well that the Respondent/husband is employed at Tiruppur, the Petitioner/wife got married to him. Reasons stated by the Petitioner/wife that, she has to take care of her age-old parents and that, she is undergoing Montessori training programme in Chennai, cannot be valid reasons for transfer of the proceedings, though there is dispute between the parties in the family front. When this Court questioned the duration of the Petitioner's training programme in Chennai, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, it is six months. It is not as if matrimonial proceedings are going to be concluded within a period of six months, except in case of divorce by mutual consent.

¶15

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

¶16

Since the grounds raised by the Petitioner/wife for transfer of the proceedings from Tiruppur to Chennai, are not germane, and that the Respondent/husband is employed in a Private Company in Tiruppur, and also that the parties are usually represented by Lawyers before the Court below, the relief sought by the Petitioner cannot be granted.

¶17

The Principal District Court, Tiruppur is expected to conclude the trial in I.D.O.P.No.56 of 2019, as expeditiously as possible, without adjourning the matter beyond 30 working days at any point of time, to bring the issue to a logical end.

¶18

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
dismissed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently,
connected C.M.P.No.1188 of 2020 is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
(aeb)
To :
The Principal District Court, Tiruppur.
2.The Judge, Principal Family Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.S.Hemanand , Advocate SR.No. 6367
Tr.C.M.P.No.43 of 2020
A.SK(05/03/2020)

¶19

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

C.Teena Esther v. B. Cyril Kanagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Teena Esther v. B. Cyril Kanagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.R. Vijayakumar Vs the Union of India Owning

Gayathiri@Mohanapriya Vs M.Vijayakumar

The Union of India Vs v. Mohammed Ashim

M.Narayanan Vs M/S.Thiyagar Industries

M/S United India Insurance Co. Vs Mrs.Thangamani

Lazar Vs Arokkia Mary