Allowed

Pavithra, v. Gopalakrishnan

Madras HC25 Nov 2022TR CMP(MD)/263/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking to move her divorce proceedings from the Family Court, Dindigul to the Sub Court, Pattukkottai. The court held that given the wife's financial dependence and distance from the court, her convenience must be prioritized, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of H.M.O.P. No.142 of 2020 from Family Court, Dindigul to Sub Court, Pattukkottai; transmission of records directed.

Pavithra, Vs Gopalakrishnan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.263 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 25.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.263 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD).No.4488 of 2022

Pavithra

... Petitioner

versus

Gopalakrishnan ... Respondent

¶11

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 C.P.C. to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.142 of 2020 on the file of

¶12

the Family Court, Dindigul and transfer the same to the Sub Court, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu For Respondent : Mr.R.Thangapandian

¶14

1/6

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.263 of 2022

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No.142 of 2020 from the file of the Family Court, Dindigul to the file of Sub Court, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

¶19

The petitioner herein is the wife and the respondent herein is the husband. The marriage between them was solemnized on 01.07.2018, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. Due to some misunderstanding, now, both are living separately. Thereafter, the respondent has filed H.M.O.P.No.142 of 2020 before the Family Court, Dindigul, for divorce. Now, the petitioner is living along with her aged parents at Pattukottai. Since she is not having sufficient means and there is no one to accompany her, she finds it difficult to travel from Pattukottai to Dindigul. Hence, she filed the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition to transfer the case in H.M.O.P.No.142 of 2020 from the file of the the Family Court, Dindigul, to the file of the Sub

¶20

2/6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.263 of 2022

¶23

Court, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

¶25

the distance between Pattukkottai and Dindigul is around 220 kms. Now, the petitioner is living along with her aged parents at Pattukkottai. Further, she is not having sufficient means and she also depends upon her parents to meet out her day-to-day expenses. Since

¶26

there is no direct bus to reach Dindigual and there is no one to accompany her, she finds it difficult to travel from Pattukkottai to Dindigul, for appearing before the Family Court, Dindigul, for each and every hearing.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶28

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amitha Shah vs-

¶29

Virendar Lal Shah , reported (2003)10 SCC 609) has held that the convenience of the wife and more so of the child must be taken into

¶30

3/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.263 of 2022

¶33

Rajani

¶34

account while deciding the petition for transfer and in the case of Rajani Kishor Paradeshi Vs Kishor Babulal Paradeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in such type of transfer petitions, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.

¶35

This Court, by taking into consideration that the convenience

¶36

of wife is to be taken into consideration at the time of considering transfer petitions as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited supra, is inclined to allow the present petition.

¶37

Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition stands allowed. The proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.142 of 2020 pending on the file of the Family Court, Dindigul, is withdrawn and ordered to be transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District. The Family Court, Dindigul, is directed to transmit the entire case records to the Sub Court, Pattukkottai, forthwith. The learned Sub

¶38

4/6

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.263 of 2022

¶41

Judge, Sub Court, Pattukkottai, shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

25.11.2022

¶43

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ogy

¶44

¶45

The Family Court, Dindigul.

¶46

The Sub Court, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur District.

¶47

5/6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.263 of 2022

¶50

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶51

ogy

¶52

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.263 of 2022

¶53

25.11.2022

¶54

6/6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Pavithra, v. Gopalakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavithra, v. Gopalakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jothimani Vs Periyan (Died) 1.NALLAMMAL

J.Ramesh Kumar Vs K.Jeyapaul Kasi

Suganthy, Vs M.T.Godwin

S.K.Ramasamy Vs S.v.K.Ravichandran

G.Anandha Lakshmi, Vs R.Ananda Krishnan

S. Maragatham, Vs Enokku alias Siren