Allowed

J.Ramalakshmi v. K.Ravikumar

Madras HC24 Jun 2021TR CMP(MD)/268/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court transferred a High Court Order/Process (H.M.O.P.) originally entertained by the Family Court, Chengalpattu to the Family Court, Dindigul. The petitioner, unable to afford travel costs for hearings 400km away, successfully argued for the transfer based on financial constraints and distance.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P. No. 48 of 2019 transferred from Family Court, Chengalpattu to Family Court, Dindigul for disposal.

J.Ramalakshmi Vs K.Ravikumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Tr CMP (MD) No. 268 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.06.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN Tr.C.M.P.(MD) No.268 of 2019

¶4

and C.M.P.(MD)No.6264 and 6265 of 2019

¶5

J.Ramalakshmi ... Petitioner

-vs-

K.Ravikumar

... Respondent

PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2019 from the file of Family Court, Chengalpattu and transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Dindigul.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar

¶11

For Respondent : No appearance

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2019 from the file of Family Court, Chengalpattu and transfer the same to the file of Family Court, Dindigul.

¶14

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that the respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No. 48 of 2019 before the Family Court, Chegalpattu for dissolution of marriage. It is further submitted that the petitioner is living with her aged parents at Dindigul and she has no source of income. The distance between Dindigul and Chegalpattu is about 400 kms and she could not able to spend money for her travel. In such circumstances, it is difficult for the petitioner to travel from Dindigul to Chegalpattu for attending every hearing in H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Chegalpattu. Hence, he seeks to transfer the case.

¶15

The learned counsel for the respondent has not appeared today.

¶16

This Court is satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2019 is withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Chengalpattu and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Dindigul, for disposal as per law. The Judge, Family Court, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/2

¶19

Tr CMP (MD) No. 268 of 2019

¶20

Chegalpattu is directed to transmit the papers to the Family Court, Dindigul, forthwith. The Judge, Family Court, Dindigul is directed to dispose H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2019 on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

In fine, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (CS I)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

msa

¶27

To: 1.The Judge, Family Court, Chengalpattu

¶28

The Judge, Family Court, Dindigul

¶29

Tr.C.M.P.(MD) No.268 of 2019

¶30

and C.M.P.(MD)No.6264 and 6265 of 2019 24.06.2021

¶31

KK(02.07.2021) 2P 3C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

J.Ramalakshmi v. K.Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Ramalakshmi v. K.Ravikumar

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

M.Sujatha, Vs J.v.Saravanan

Poornima Vs Dinesh Babu

A.Radha, Vs v.P.Venkatraman

Pachiammal Vs Meenakshi Sundaram

Cholamandalam Ms General Vs Nainar,S/O.Chithirai Thevar

Sinduja Vs S.Senthil Raja