Allowed

Hemalatha v. Snakilikumar

Madras HC28 Oct 2022TR CMP(MD)/388/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed a transfer petition to move a divorce case (HMOP No.72 of 2019) from Sub Court Paramakudi to Family Court Madurai. The court held that transfer was warranted due to the petitioner's residence shift to Madurai and her dependency on aged parents, prioritizing her convenience per Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

HMOP No.72 of 2019 transferred to Family Court, Madurai; case records to be sent within 15 days; No costs.

Hemalatha Vs Snakilikumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.388 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 28.10.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.388 of 2022 and

¶7

C.M.P(MD)No.6323 of 2022

¶8

Hemalatha ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.Sankilikumar

¶11

2.Balasubaramanyian ... Respondents

¶12

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C, to withdraw HMOP.No.72 of 2019 pending before the Sub Court, Paramakudi and transfer the same to the Family Court, Madurai.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirupathy For Respondents : No representation

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is

¶16

filed seeking transfer of the case in

¶17

HMOP.No.72 of 2019 from Sub-Court, Paramakudi to Family Court, Madurai.

¶18

1/5

¶19

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

¶20

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.388 of 2022

¶21

2.The marriage between the petitioner and the

¶22

first respondent was solemnized on 19.03.2018.

¶23

There are differences of opinion between them. The petitioner has filed a petition in HMOP.No.72 of 2019 seeking divorce before

¶24

Sub-Court, Paramakudi. The petitioner has filed this

¶25

present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition to transfer the above proceedings to Family Court, Madurai on the ground that she has filed the above HMOP while

¶26

she was staying in the residence of her uncle's house at Paramakudi along with her parents and now she has shifted her residence to Madurai, which is her parental house. She is depending upon her aged parents. Since she has no means, she has also filed a petition in M.C.No.128 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai.

¶27

3.Though respondent has been served and name has

¶28

been printed in the cause list, there is no representation for the respondent.

¶29

2/5

¶30

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

¶31

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.388 of 2022

¶32

4.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶33

Amitha Shah vs- Virendar Lal Shah , reported (2003)10 SCC 609 has held that the convenience of the

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

5.This Court being satisfied with the reasons

¶37

stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition and also taking into consideration that the convenience of wife is to be taken into consideration

¶38

at the time of considering transfer petitions as held

¶39

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited supra, is inclined to allow the present petition.

¶40

6.In the light of the above, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition stands allowed with the following directions:

¶41

3/5

¶42

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

¶43

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.388 of 2022

¶44

(i)The case in HMOP.No.72 of 2019 on the

¶45

file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi is

¶46

transferred to the Family Court, Madurai;

¶47

directed to send the above case records within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai, who in turn, on receipt of the case, shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.

28.10.2022

Index: Yes/No

1.The Sub Judge, Paramakudi.

¶52

2.The Judge, Family Court, Madurai.

¶53

4/5

¶54

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

¶55

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.388 of 2022

¶56

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶57

dsk

¶58

TR.C.M.P(MD)No.388 of 2022

¶59

28.10.2022

¶60

5/5

¶61

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

Hemalatha v. Snakilikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemalatha v. Snakilikumar

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

R.L.Raju, Vs a.Jeyamani

S. Krishnan (Died), 1. Chandran, Vs Issac (Died), Thangamani alias Thavamani (Died), Krishnan (Died), 1. Chinnakutti

Saravana Perumal (Died) Vs the District Collector

Palanikumar Vs Manoramani

S.Aarthi Vs R.Magesh @ Manikandan

Pommeswari Vs Jothi Manikandan