Allowed

M.Pandeeswari v. Suresh @ Sureshkumar

Madras HC8 Jan 2021TR CMP(MD)/198/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous petition transferring restitution of conjugal rights proceedings from Family Court, Nagapattinam to Family Court, Dindigul due to convenience, noting the wife's residence in Dindigul and the husband's in Nagapattinam.

What did the court decide?

The High Order of Passing No.35 of 2020 moved to Family Court, Nagapattinam is withdrawn and transferred to the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul.

M.Pandeeswari Vs Suresh @ Sureshkumar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

TR.CMP(MD).No.198 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.01.2021 CORAM :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶4

TR.CMP(MD).No.198 of 2020 and CMP(MD).No.4051 of 2020

¶5

M. Pandeeswari .. Petitioner/Respondent

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Suresh @ Sureshkumar .. Respondent/Petitioner

¶8

Prayer: Transfer CMP filed under Section 24 CPC to withdraw and transfer HMOP.No.35 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Nagapattinam to the Family Court, Dindigul.

¶9

For petitioner : Mr. J. Vishnu

¶10

For respondent : No appearance

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The petitioner / wife, who is facing the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights at the instance of the respondent / husband, seeks transfer of the same from Family Court, Nagapattinam to the Family Court, Dindigul. Transfer is sought for mainly on the ground of convenience.

¶13

A perusal of the original petition itself shows that the petitioner / wife is a resident of Dindigul. Despite the service, the respondent / husband has not chosen to appear neither in person or through counsel duly instructed.

¶14

Considering the fact that the respondent / husband is the resident of Nagapttinam and petitioner / wife is the resident of Dindigul, if the proceedings are transferred to the Family Court, Dindgul, the respondent / husband will be more inconvenienced as he will have to attend every hearing in person in the Family Court, Dindigul. It is therefore, deemed to fit to transfer the HMOP.No.35 of 2020 to the Sub Court, Dindigul as the same will reduce the inconvenience caused to the parties, as lawyers can represent the parties for preliminary hearings before the Sub court.

¶15

In view of the same, the Transfer CMP is allowed and the HMOP.No.35 of 2020, on the file of the Family Court, Nagapattinam is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul. The Family Court, Nagapatttinam is directed to transmit the papers to the Principal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

1/2

¶17

TR.CMP(MD).No.198 of 2020

¶18

Sub Court, Dindigul, forthwith. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶19

Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS II) / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶20

// True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) trp To 1. The Judge, The Family Court, Nagapattinam. 2. The Judge, The Principal Sub Court, Dindigul. TR.CMP(MD).No.198 of 2020 and CMP(MD).No.4051 of 2020 08.01.2021 MJ(CO) KK(03.02.2021) 2P 3C

¶21

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

¶22

2/2

M.Pandeeswari v. Suresh @ Sureshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Pandeeswari v. Suresh @ Sureshkumar

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

Dhanya Meenakshi Vs P. Geetha Ramanan

Ramalakshmi (F-55/13), Vs Gunasekaran

T.Saranya Vs Senthil Murugan

Arunachalam, Vs Murugesan (*) (Died)

Axeela Alias Mary Vs Yousuf Alias Joseph

Ranjeetha Vs Giri Prasath