Allowed

B.Ramya v. S.Vinothkumar

Madras HC15 Mar 2022TR CMP/25/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court transferred a husband's divorce petition from Sub Court Hosur to Family Court Coimbatore. The transfer allowed the wife, residing in Coimbatore, to join the trial with her pending maintenance petition, considering compelling reasons regarding travel distance and the husband's employment in Bangalore.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P. No.169 of 2021 was withdrawn from Sub Court Hosur and transferred to Family Court Coimbatore for joint trial with M.C. No.162 of 2021.

B.Ramya Vs S.Vinothkumar — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 15.03.2022

¶3

C O R A M

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶5

Tr. C.M.P. No.25 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.692 of 2022

¶6

B.Ramya ... Petitioner/ Respondent

¶7

Versus

¶8

S.Vinothkumar ...Respondent/ Petitioner

¶9

Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P. No.169 of 2021 from the file of the Additional Sub Court, Hosur and transfer the same to the Family Court at Coimbatore for join trial in M.C.No.162 of 2021.

¶10

For Petitioner ... Mr.Udaya P.S.Menon For Respondent ... Ms.R.Bharath Kumar

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petition is filed by the wife seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.169 of 2021 filed by her husband for divorce pending on the file of the Sub Court, Hosur to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore to be tried along with M.C.No.162 of 2021 filed by the wife.

¶13

On a perusal of the petition and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is residing at Coimbatore and the respondent husband is working at Bangalore. Since the respondent husband is not giving maintenance to his wife, she has also filed a maintenance petition, which is pending on the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore. In these circumstances, it may not be possible for the petitioner to travel all the way to Hosur to attend hearings of the petition. Therefore, considering the compelling reasons given, the petition is allowed as prayed for. However, considering the fact that the respondent husband is now working at Bangalore, his presence for all the hearing is dispensed with except when he is required to be present for counselling and for adducing evidence.

¶14

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

¶15

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and H.M.O.P.No.169 of 2021 filed by her husband pending on the file of the Sub Court, Hosur is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore to be tried along with M.C.No.162 of 2021 filed by the wife. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶16

Sd/-

¶17

Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

ab/srn

¶21

¶22

The Additional Sub Court, Hosur.

¶23

The Family Court, Coimbatore

¶24

The Section Officer,

¶25

VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶26

+1cc to M/s.R.Bharath Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.18233

¶27

+1cc to Mr.V.Vijayakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.17957

¶28

Tr. C.M.P. No.25 of 2022 and C.M.P. No.692 of 2022

¶29

SKM(CO) SB(28/03/2022)

¶30

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

B.Ramya v. S.Vinothkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ramya v. S.Vinothkumar

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

Selvaraj Vs Sivaraj

Janardhanam Vs M.Vinayagam

Hemalatha Vs v.Gopinath

K. Shalini Vs M. Santhosh Kumar

S.Divya Vs P.Balaji

Jeevanandam Vs the Managing Director