Dismissed

Sundarraj v. S. Meena

Madras HC19 Sept 2022TR CMP(MD)/284/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's transfer petition seeking to move a matrimonial maintenance case from the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, to the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The court held that the convenience of the wife and child takes precedence, rejecting the petitioner's claims of threat.

What did the court decide?

The transfer civil miscellaneous petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Sundarraj Vs S. Meena — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.284 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.284 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD).No.4769 of 2022

Sundar Raj

... Petitioner

versus

Meena ... Respondent

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 C.P.C. to withdraw the case in M.C.No.21 of 2022 pending on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli and transfer the same to the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddlore.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.Thirumalaiappan For Respondent : Mr.J.K.Jeyaseelan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking transfer of the case in M.C.No.21 of 2022 from the file of the Family 1/6

¶15

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

¶16

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.284 of 2022

¶17

Court, Tiruchirappalli, to the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

¶18

The petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent herein is the wife. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 22.08.2005, as per Hindu Rites and Customs and out of the wedlock, they are blessed with a female child. Due to some misunderstanding, the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2013 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, for divorce. The respondent has also filed H.M.O.P.No.323 of 2013 and M.C.No.171 of 2013 seeking restitution of conjugal rights and interim maintenance. In the meantime, H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2013 was transferred to Trichy and renumbered as H.M.O.P.No.95 of 2016. Pending litigation, the petitioner and the respondent have entered into compromises and based on the said compromise memo, all the cases were closed. Thereafter, the respondent lived happily with his wife. However, she lodged a complaint before the Additional Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, alleging

¶19

2/6

¶20

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

¶21

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.284 of 2022

¶22

that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by demanding dowry. The said complaint was numbered as D.V.C.No.66 of 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed H.M.O.P.No.321 of 2021 before the Family Court, Cuddalore, seeking divorce. Now, the wife has also filed a petition seeking maintenance in M.C.No.21 of 2022 before the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli. Therefore, the petitioner has filed petition seeking transfer of M.C.No.21 of 2022 from the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappali to the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's mother is suffering from old-age ailments and therefore, he alone has to take care of his mother. He further submits that the petitioner is also facing life threat at the hands of the respondent and her relatives. Therefore, he finds it difficult to appear before the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶24

3/6

¶25

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

¶26

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.284 of 2022

¶27

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

¶28

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 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.

¶29

In view of the above decision and being not satisfied with the reasons stated by the petitioner, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

19.09.2022

¶31

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ogy 4/6

¶32

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

¶33

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.284 of 2022

¶34

¶35

The Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶36

5/6

¶37

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

¶38

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.284 of 2022

¶39

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶40

ogy

¶41

TR.C.M.P(MD).No.284 of 2022

¶42

19.09.2022

¶43

6/6

¶44

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

Sundarraj v. S. Meena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundarraj v. S. Meena

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

Seyad Shariat Finance Limited Vs Vallinayagam

T. Kannan, Vs v. Rajesh Kanna

Jain Melord, Vs N. Sunil

Meena.S Vs Sundar Raj

M. Sabarimala, Vs R. Veeraraghavan

C. Selvapriya Vs T. Parthasarathy