Allowed

S.Gowri v. Meiyarasu @ Gopi

Madras HC18 Mar 2022TR CMP/117/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner wife sought transfer of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights petition from Erode to Palladam due to residence, work location, and travel difficulties. The Single Judge allowed the transfer considering the wife resided and worked within Palladam jurisdiction. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed; H.M.O.P.No.417 of 2021 is transferred from the learned Family Court Judge, Erode to the learned Subordinate Judge Court, Palladam.

S.Gowri Vs Meiyarasu @ Gopi — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶5

Tr.C.M.P.No.117 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.2150 of 2022

¶6

Mrs.S.Gowri ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Mr.Meiyarasu @ Gopi ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.417 of 2021 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge, Erode and to transfer the same to the learned Subordinate Judge Court, Palladam.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nagarajan

¶11

For Respondent : Served – No appearance

¶12

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.417 of 2021 on the file of the learned Family Court Judge, Erode and to transfer the same to the learned Subordinate Judge Court, Palladam.

¶13

The petitioner/wife has also filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.91 of 2021 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palladam, which is pending. Thereafter, the respondent/husband has filed the H.M.O.P.No.417 of 2021, before the Family Court Judge, Erode for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

¶14

The Transfer is sought for by the petitioner/wife on the ground that she is residing and working in a Garments Company at Palladam. It is her grievance that she finds it very difficult to travel 5 hours alone from Palladam to Erode. Further, the respondent/husband is not paying maintenance to her.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. The respondent, though served,

¶16

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

¶17

has not entered appearance.

¶18

Considering the reasons given and the fact that the wife is residing and working within the Jurisdiction of the Subordinate Court, Palladam, this Court is of the considered view that the request for transfer should be allowed.

¶19

Accordingly, the transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.417 of 2021 pending on the file of the learned learned Family Court Judge, Erode is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the learned Subordinate Judge Court, Palladam. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶21

//True Copy//

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

ssn

¶24

¶25

The Family Court Judge, Erode.

¶26

The Subordinate Judge, Palladam.

¶27

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.S.Nagarajan, Advocate, S.R.No.18402

¶29

Tr.C.M.P.No.117 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.2150 of 2022

¶30

GPL(CO) SB(05/04/2022)

¶31

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

S.Gowri v. Meiyarasu @ Gopi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Gowri v. Meiyarasu @ Gopi

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

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Sulochana

M/s.Sharma Centre for Heritage Education Vs The Director

Ravikumar Vs the Managing Director

B. Pankajam, Vs S. Manohar

K.Sumaiya Vs Muneer Ahmed

Maria Selsa Vs Anantha Muthuraj