Dismissed

S.Meenu@Meenakshi v. M.Lakshmanan

Madras HC17 Feb 2021TR CMP(MD)/323/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This transfer petition by petitioner to shift a matrimonial suit from Pudukottai to Devakottai was dismissed because the petitioner withdrew the suit by settling the matter with Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous; Subordinate Court directed to allow video conferencing and waive cooling-off period for Section 13B petition.

S.Meenu@Meenakshi Vs M.Lakshmanan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.323 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.02.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶3

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.323 of 2020

¶4

S.Meinu @ Meenakshi ... Petitioner/Petitioner -Vs-

¶5

M.Lakshmanan

¶6

... Respondent /Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.101 of 2019, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai District and transfer the same to Subordinate Court, Devakottai.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Shanmuga Raja For Respondent : Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

Though the wife seeks transfer of original petition in H.M.O.P.No.101 of 2019, filed under Section 12 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking declaration that the marriage between the parties is null and void, it is now represented by the learned counsel appearing for the wife that the parties have agreed to file a petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, before the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai.

¶11

2.Hence, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. If a petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act is filed, the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai is directed to dispose of the same along with any Interlocutory Application that may be filed seeking to waive of six months cooling off period. The learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai is directed to dispose of the same without insisting on the physical presence of the husband, by using video conferencing facility, that is available. No costs.

¶12

// True Copy //

¶13

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶14

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

¶15

1/2

¶16

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.323 of 2020

¶17

¶18

The Subordinate Judge,Pudukottai, Pudukottai District

¶19

+1 CC to M/s.AL.GANTHIMATHI, Advocate ( SR-5806[F] dated 18/02/2021 )

¶20

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.323 of 2020 17.02.2021

¶21

SE(CO) KB(01.03.2021) 2P 3C

¶22

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

¶23

2/2

S.Meenu@Meenakshi v. M.Lakshmanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Meenu@Meenakshi v. M.Lakshmanan

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

Durai (Deceased) Vs Thangavel

R.Anbalagan Vs S.Saranya

Kamatchi, Vs Rajesh @ Vetharaj

Deivadharshini @ Alagumeenal Vs Karthik

K.Soman Vs Pushpavalli

Natarajan Vs Shantha