Allowed

A.D.Aruna Devi v. J.Bhagya Raj

Madras HC7 Apr 2022TR CMP/163/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a transfer petition seeking to move a restitution of conjugal rights petition from Chengalpet to Chennai to be tried with a connected maintenance petition, considering the petitioner's residence and husband's failure to maintain her.

What did the court decide?

O.P. No.100 of 2021 is withdrawn from Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpet and transferred to IV Additional Family Court, Chennai. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

A.D.Aruna Devi Vs J.Bhagya Raj — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶5

Tr.C.M.P.No.163 of 2022 & C.M.P.No.3249 of 2022

¶6

A.D.Aruna Devi ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

J.Bhagya Raj ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the O.P.No.100 of 2021 on the file of Principal Sub-Court at Chengalpet in Kancheepuram-1 and transfer the same to the file of IV Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai for disposal along with M.C.No.278 of 2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.R.V.Lakshmipathy For Respondent : No Appearance.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The above Transfer Petition is filed seeking transfer of O.P.No.100 of 2021, filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu to the file of the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai, to be tried along with M.C.No.278 of 2021, filed by the petitioner wife seeking maintenance.

¶13

The petitioner wife would submit that the petition filed by the husband in O.P.No.100 of 2021 is only a counter blast to the maintenance petition filed by her in M.C.No.278 of 2021. The petitioner would state that she is living with her parents at Chennai and she cannot travel alone to the Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpet, Kancheepuram to attend the hearings.

¶14

The respondent though served has not entered appearance. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶15

Considering the fact that the petitioner is residing at Chennai and also taking into account the fact that the

¶16

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

¶17

respondent husband is not maintaining her and for which she has filed a maintenance petition, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Accordingly, O.P.No.100 of 2021 pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpet is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the IV Additional Family Court at Chennai. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CS-IX)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

kan

¶23

¶24

1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpet.

¶25

2.The IV Additional Judge, Family Court at Chennai.

¶26

+1cc to Mr.R.V.Lakshmipathy, Advocate SR.No.23759

¶27

Tr.C.M.P.No.163 of 2022

¶28

SV(CO) GN(05/05/2022)

¶29

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

A.D.Aruna Devi v. J.Bhagya Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.D.Aruna Devi v. J.Bhagya Raj

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

S.Sivasankari, Vs G.Ragavan

N.Swathy Priya Vs M.K.Rajagopal

The Chairman Vs Mrs.R.Indhira

H.B. Hussain Baig Vs Jabeena

M.Ravi Vs M/S.Sundaram Finance Limited

M.Shanthi Vs R.Balamurugan