Allowed

M.Mahalakshmi v. G.Ramesh

Madras HC15 Mar 2021TR CMP(MD)/78/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered a petition seeking transfer of a matrimonial case from Sub-Court Sankarankovil to Sub-Court Kovilpatti under Section 24 CPC. Weighing the wife's residence against the husband's inconvenience over a short distance, the court ordered the transfer.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P. No. 198 of 2019 was withdrawn from Sub-Court Sankarankovil and transferred to Sub-Court Kovilpatti. No costs awarded.

M.Mahalakshmi Vs G.Ramesh — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

TR.CMP.(MD)No.78 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.03.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

TR.CMP.(MD)No.78 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD)No.1555 of 2020

¶7

M.Mahalakshmi : Petitioner/Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

G.Ramesh : Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to withdraw and transfer H.M.O.P.No.198 of 2019 on the file of the Sub-Court, Sankarankovil to the Sub-Court, Kovilpatti.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu For Respondent : Mr.I.Murugesan

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner / wife seeks transfer of H.M.O.P.No.198 of 2019 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Sankarankovil to Sub-Court, Kovilpatti. The said petition is filed by the respondent / husband seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

¶15

The husband is a resident of Kuruvikulam Village near Sankarankovil, whereas, the wife is a resident of Kovilpatti in Tuticorin District. Though the two towns, namely, Sankarankovil and Kovilpatti, are situated in different Districts, the distance between them is less than 40 kms. Even then, the wife would seek transfer, as if the right to conduct the proceedings in a place of her choice is a right vested in her.

¶16

The husband would also make a complaint that the wife is refusing to live with his mother. In today's circumstances, this expectation of the husband is very unreasonable.

¶17

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent / husband would further submit that the brother of the petitioner is a member of a political party and he would create problems if the husband is to go to Kovilpatti for every hearing. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

1/2

¶19

TR.CMP.(MD)No.78 of 2020

¶20

Considering the stand taken by both the parties as well as the convenience of the wife, which is said to be the paramount consideration in matters of transfer, I am of the opinion that H.M.O.P.No.198 of 2019 should be transferred to the Sub-Court, Kovilpatti, since the inconvenience caused to the husband will not be much, considering the distance between the two towns. Inasmuch as the proceedings are before a Sub-Court, the husband need not attend every hearing and it is enough if he attends the effective hearings.

¶21

Hence, this transfer petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.198 of 2019 is withdrawn from the file of the Sub-Court, Sankarankovil and transferred to the file of the Sub-Court, Kovilpatti, to be tried and disposed of in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar (CS II)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

¶27

To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.

¶28

2.The Subordinate Judge, Sankarankovil.

¶29

+1 CC to M/s.I.MURUGESAN, Advocate ( SR-11197[F] dated 15/03/2021 )

¶30

TR.CMP.(MD)No.78 of 2020 15.03.2021

¶31

MJ(CO) KK(26.03.2021) 2P 4C

¶32

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

¶33

2/2

M.Mahalakshmi v. G.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Mahalakshmi v. G.Ramesh

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

Sathyalakshmi Vs R.Mohanraj

E.Uma, Vs K.Balachandran

S.Xavier Vs Pappammal

V.Durairaj, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Radhakrishnan Vs Sisubalagan

The General Manager, Vs the Metal Powder Company Limited