Allowed

S.Janani v. K.Ramesh

Madras HC12 Apr 2022TR CMP/82/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, residing in Coimbatore, sought transfer of a pending maintenance petition from Sub-Court, Kangeyam to Family Court, Coimbatore due to travel difficulties and lack of maintenance from the husband. The Court allowed the transfer and dispensed with the respondent’s presence for hearings except for counselling and evidence.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2021 withdrawn from Sub-Court, Kangeyam and transferred to Family Court, Coimbatore. Respondent's presence dispensed with except for counselling and evidence.

S.Janani Vs K.Ramesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶5

Tr.C.M.P.No.82 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.1657 of 2022

S.Janani

... Petitioner

Vs.

K.Ramesh ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2021 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Kangeyam and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Saravanakumar

¶12

For Respondent : Served – No Appearance

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Transfer Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2021 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Kangeyam and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.

¶15

The petitioner is residing at Coimbatore with her minor child and aged parents. The petitioner/wife is working in a School at Coimbatore. The petitioner/wife has expressed her difficulties in travelling more than 85 kms., to Kangeyam as the matter is pending before the Sub-Court, Kangeyam. Since the respondent/husband has not given any maintenance to her, she has to spend her limited resources for the travel.

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. The respondent, though served, has not entered appearance.

¶17

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

¶18

However, considering the reasons given for the transfer particularly the fact that the husband is not maintaining his wife and his minor child, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. However, considering the fact that the matter is now being transferred to the Family Court, Coimbatore, where presence of parties for all the hearings is mandatory and taking into account the fact that the respondent/husband is working at this juncture, his presence for all the hearings is dispensed with except when he is required to be present for counselling and for adducing evidence.

¶19

In the light of the above reasons given by the petitioner/wife, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed as prayed for and H.M.O.P.No.59 of 2021 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Kangeyam is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

ssn

¶25

¶26

The Subordinate Court, Kangeyam.

¶27

The Family Court, Coimbatore.

¶28

The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶29

+1cc to M/s.I.Abrar MD Abdullah, Advocate, S.R.No.25385

¶30

Tr.C.M.P.No.82 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.1657 of 2022

¶31

SKM(CO) SU(02/05/2022)

¶32

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

S.Janani v. K.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Janani v. K.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

L. Saranya Vs C. Sritharan

S.Kavitha Vs K.Palani

Vaishali Vs a.Saravanakumar

Geetha Vs Prakash

Dhileeba Vs a.Aravind

S.Keerthiga, Vs S. Anantharaj