Remanded

Sharmila Parveen, v. S. Mohamed Hanifa

Madras HC9 Mar 2021TR CMP(MD)/26/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

petitioner sought transfer of matrimonial suit from Family Court Chennai to Sub Court Uthamapalayam due to wife's residence and convenience. Bench held transfer caused hardship for parties under Section 2 DNA Act. Suit transferred to Uthamapalayam.

What did the court decide?

Suit withdrawn from Family Court No.V, Chennai and transferred to Sub Court, Uthamapalayam. Papers transmitted by Family Court.

Sharmila Parveen, Vs S. Mohamed Hanifa — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.26 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 09.03.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.26 of 2020 and C.M.P(MD) No.496 of 2020

¶7

Sharmila Parveen ... Petitioner/Respondent

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

S.Mohamed Hanifa ... Respondent /Petitioner

¶10

Prayer: Transfer Civil Mis cellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw O.S.No.295 of 2019, on the file of the Family Court No.V, Chennai and transfer the same to the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The wife seeks transfer of O.S.No.295 of 2019 filed by the husband, seeking Talaq pronounced by him on 31.10.2018, 28.11.2018 and 31.12.2018 is valid.

¶13

2.The husband is a resident of Chennai and the wife is a resident of Cumbum, Theni District.

¶14

3.Transfer is sought for solely on the ground of convenience of the wife, since the wife is a resident of P.T.Kulam, Cumbam, Theni district.

¶15

4.The learned counsel for the respondent husband would oppose the transfer on the ground that the Court at Uthamapalayam will not have jurisdiction as the marriage took place at Chennai.

¶16

5.Considering the distance between the two places and the fact that the proceedings have been initiated at the Family Court at Chennai, under Section 2 of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, which requires the presence of the parties for every hearing, I am of the considered opinion that the conduct of the proceedings at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai would cause more hardship to the parties. On the other

¶17

1/2

¶18

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.26 of 2020

¶19

hand, if the proceedings are transferred to the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam, the husband need not appear for every hearing.

¶20

6.In this view of the matter, the suit in O.S.No.295 of 2019 is withdrawn from the file of the Family Court No.V, Chennai and transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam, to be tried in accordance with law. The Family Court No.V, Chennai is directed to transmit the papers to the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam, forthwith.

¶21

7.Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶24

vrn

¶25

¶26

1.The Judge,Family Court No.V, Chennai

¶27

2.The Sub Judge, Uthamapalayam, Theni District.

¶28

3.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, (2 copies) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.K.APPADURAI, Advocate ( SR-9947[F] dated 10/03/2021 )

¶30

Order made in Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.26 of 2020 and C.M.P(MD) No.496 of 2020 09.03.2021

¶31

VB (30/04/2021) 2P / 6C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

Sharmila Parveen, v. S. Mohamed Hanifa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharmila Parveen, v. S. Mohamed Hanifa

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

P.Arumugam Vs S.P.Kuzhanthaivel

Nagarajan Vs Bojarajan

M.Subramanian Vs a.Nagendran

S. Karthika, Vs S. Karthik

Rajeswari Vs C.M.Chinnaraja

G.Kumar@Muthukumaran Vs S.Divyalakshmi