Disposed

R. Janaki v. N. Ragavendaran

Madras HC5 Apr 2022TR CMP/85/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred a divorce matter from Trichy Family Court to Chennai. While citing the origin of the petition, the court first transferred proceedings to the Subordinate Court, Ponneri. It allowed the transfer but forbade the new court from insisting on respondent's presence for all hearings, requiring him only for counselling and evidence.

What did the court decide?

Transfer from Trichy to Ponneri (acting for Chennai jurisdiction conditions applied). No presence required for routine hearings.

R. Janaki Vs N. Ragavendaran — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.04.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶5

TR.C.M.P. NO. 85 OF 2022 AND C.M.P.NO.1677 OF 2022

¶6

P.Janaki ... Petitioner/ Respondent

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

N.Ragavendran ... Respondent/ Petitioner

¶9

PRAYER:

¶10

Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.201 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Trichy, and transfer it to the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, to be heard along with H.M.O.P.No.201 of 2021, pending on its file.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.Adithya Varadarajan For Respondent : Mr.A. Raja Mohamed

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The wife has filed the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.201 of 2021 filed by the husband for divorce on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Trichy, to the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.

¶14

2.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent on instructions has no objection but, however, contended that since the matter is now being transferred to the Family Court, Chennai, the presence of party was mandatory and this would cause hardship to the respondent/husband who would have to

¶15

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

¶16

travel to Chennai for every hearing.

¶17

3.Therefore, in the interest of justice the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered, withdrawing the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.201 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Trichy, and transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Ponneri, subject to the condition that the Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai, shall not insist on the presence of the respondent/husband for every hearing except for attending the counselling session and for adducing evidence. The learned counsel for the respondent would request for an early disposal of the HMOP. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, shall assign the matter is to the concerned Family Court. The learned Family Judge to whom the matter so assigned shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mps To 1. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Trichy. 2. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. +2ccs to Mr.R.Deepak, Advocate, S.R.No.23171 +1cc to Mr.A. Raja Mohamed, Advocate, S.R.No.23196

¶18

Tr.C.M.P. No. 85 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.1677 of 2022 MT(CO) PM/14/06/2022

¶19

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

R. Janaki v. N. Ragavendaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Janaki v. N. Ragavendaran

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

R.Satish Kumar Vs Tmt.Meena

J.Sharmila Vs D.Nanda Kumar

N. Shanmugam Vs Y. Balasubramani

K.Vinothini @ Vaishnavi Vs P.Diwakar

Pauline Shekina Vs Samuel Joshua

R.Usharani Vs N.Rathinam