Dismissed

N.Sankilikaruppu v. C.Muthurathinam

Madras HC20 Dec 2022TR CMP(MD)/780/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a transfer petition filed by a husband seeking transfer of a restitution of conjugal rights petition to the Family Court. The Court held that the wife's convenience and that of her children trump the husband's convenience in transfer decisions. The petitioner was directed to withdraw the divorce petition and contest the case in the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.791 of 2021 and contest H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2022 in Sub-Judge, Thirumangalam; case to be disposed within six months.

N.Sankilikaruppu Vs C.Muthurathinam — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.780 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.780 of 2022

¶7

N.Sankillikaruppu ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

C.Muthurathinam ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw the petition in H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2022 pending before the Sub-Judge, Thirumangalam and to transfer the same to the Family Court, Madurai to try along with the petition in H.M.O.P.No.791 of 2021 pending before the Family Court, Madurai and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. A.Ramkumar

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.780 of 2022

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to withdraw the petition in H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2022 pending before the Sub Court, Thirumangalam and to transfer the same to the Family Court, Madurai, to try along with the petition in H.M.O.P.No.791 of 2021 pending before the Family Court, Madurai.

¶17

The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 12.03.2014, as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. Subsequently, due to some difference of opinion, the petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.791 of 2021, seeking divorce, before the Family Court, Madurai and notice was also received by the respondent herein. Thereafter, the respondent herein has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2022 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Sub-Court, Thirumangalam and the same is still pending.

¶18

2/6

¶19

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

¶20

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.780 of 2022

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶22

is a resident of Madurai and the respondent is working in police department, residing at 6^th Battalion Colony, Madurai. Therefore, it is difficult for them to appear before the Sub-Court, Thirumangalam. Therefore, this Court may transfer the H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2022 to the Family Court, Madurai, to try along with the petition in H.M.O.P.No.791 of 2021 pending before the Family Court, Madurai.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the

¶24

materials available on record.

¶25

Even after receiving notice in H.M.O.P.No.791 of 2021, the

¶26

respondent/wife has not come forward to join with the petitioner. However, the respondent/wife filed a separate petition in H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2022 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Sub-Court, Thirumangalam.

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.780 of 2022

¶30

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

¶31

Virendar Lal Shah , reported in (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.

¶32

This transfer petition has been filed by the husband. The respondent / wife is taking care of her two female children. The convenience of wife is to be taken into consideration at the time of considering the transfer petitions as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments cited supra. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to allow the present petition.

¶33

4/6

¶34

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

¶35

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.780 of 2022

¶36

Accordingly, this transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner/husband to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.791 of 2021 pending before the Family Court, Madurai and to contest the case in H.M.O.P.No.47 of 2022 pending on the file of the Sub-Judge, Thirumangalam. The learned Sub-Judge, Thirumangalam, is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No Costs.

¶37

20.12.2022

¶38

tta Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. To

¶39

1.Sub-Judge, Thirumangalam.

¶40

Family Court, Madurai.

¶41

5/6

¶42

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

¶43

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.780 of 2022

¶44

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶45

tta

¶46

Tr.C.M.P(MD)No.780 of 2022

¶47

20.12.2022

¶48

6/6

¶49

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

N.Sankilikaruppu v. C.Muthurathinam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Sankilikaruppu v. C.Muthurathinam

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

Anbumani Vs Asan Mohamed

Kar Leathers Private Limited, Vs J. Ebenezer Gnanadurai

Karuppi, Vs Shanmugathammal

K. Mokkaraj, Vs Soundharya

The Divisional Manager, Vs the South Mumbai District -

S. Periyasamy Vs v. Balakrishnan