Allowed

Vaishali v. a.Saravanakumar

Madras HC11 Apr 2022TR CMP/169/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a transfer petition filed by a wife to move her husband's divorce proceedings from the Family Court in Chengalpattu to the Family Court in Vellore. The court found the request justified due to the distance for the petitioner who cares for a child and the respondent's residence in Denmark.

What did the court decide?

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition (No.169 of 2022) was allowed; the divorce petition (No.356 of 2021) was ordered transferred to the Family Court, Vellore, and No.3302 of 2022 was closed.

Vaishali Vs a.Saravanakumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 11.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶5

Tr.C.M.P. No.169 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.3302 of 2022

Vaishali

... Petitioner

-Vs-

A.Saravanakumar ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw F.C.I.D.O.P.No.356 of 2021 pending on the file of the Family Court, Chengalpattu and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Vellore.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prabakaran

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the wife seeking transfer of F.C.I.D.O.P.No.356 of 2021 filed by the husband for divorce before the Family Court, Chengalpattu, to the file of the Family Court, Vellore.

¶14

2.The petitioner would contend that marriage between herself and the respondent had been solemnized on 26.04.2019 at Hope A.G. Church, Pallikaranai, Chennai, as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of wedlock, they had one girl child by name S.Serah Ann born on 03.02.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner was ill treated by the respondent and his family members. All of a sudden, the respondent filed F.C.I.D.O.P.No.356 of 2021 for divorce.

¶15

3.The reasons for seeking the transfer are as follows:

¶16

1.The petitioner is residing at Ranipet with her child.

¶17

2.The respondent is working in

¶18

Denmark.

¶19

3.The respondent husband has not provided any maintenance to the petitioner.

¶20

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

¶21

4.The distance between Ranipet and Chengalpattu is too far and she cannot travel each time to attend the hearings since the matter is before a Family Court.

¶22

4.The respondent/husband though served has not entered appearance either in person or though pleader.

¶23

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the papers.

¶24

Admittedly, the respondent is working in Denmark and is not attending the hearings himself. The petitioner has to take care of her baby girl and it is not advisable for her to travel for every hearing to Chengalpet. Under these circumstances, the request for transfer is justified and accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. F.C.I.D.O.P.No.356 of 2021 pending on the file of the Family Court, Chengalpattu, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Vellore. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

mps

¶30

To 1.The Judge, Family Court, Chengalpattu. 2. The Judge, Family Court, Vellore. +1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran, Advocate SR.No.25342

¶31

Tr.C.M.P. No.169 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.3302 of 2022

¶32

GPL(CO) GMY(10/06/2022)

¶33

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

Vaishali v. a.Saravanakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaishali v. a.Saravanakumar

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

K. Asha, Vs T. Tamilventhan

Mahalakshmi Vs Sivakumar

Shanmugapriya Vs Lokeshkumar

L. Saranya Vs C. Sritharan

S.Kavitha Vs K.Palani

S.Priyanka Vs R.Kalaiselvam