Dismissed

Karthikeyan v. Amirthavarshini

Madras HC19 Sept 2024CRL OP(MD)/13469/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought withdrawal and transfer of a pending maintenance proceeding to Chennai Family Court, alleging service defects and material suppression. Court held transfer premature as issues are matter for trial and dismissed the petition while directing the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Direction to the Judicial Magistrate Court to complete trial within three months.

Karthikeyan Vs Amirthavarshini — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13469 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 19.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13469 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.8349 of 2024

Karthikeyan

... Petitioner

Vs.

Amirtthavarshini ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to withdraw M.C.No.3 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District and transfer the same to any one of the Family Court, Chennai for further proceedings.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.E.Saraswathy For Respondent : Ms.A.Banumathy

¶13

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13469 of 2024

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking orders to withdraw M.C.No.3 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District and transfer the same to any one of the Family Court, Chennai for further proceedings.

¶17

2.It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner earlier filed a divorce petition before the Sub Court, Devakottai and thereafter, the respondent has filed an application praying maintenance in M.C.No.3 of 2024 and the same is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶18

3.The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent by giving Pune address has taken notice and since no notice was served on the petitioner, the respondent has managed to get an ex-parte order, that subsequently, the petitioner has filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte order and that they have suppressed by material aspects before the Magistrate Court.

¶19

2/5

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13469 of 2024

¶22

4.The grounds raised by the petitioner are all matter for trial, which cannot be gone into in the present petition. Moreover, it is evident from the records that the petitioner has already filed petition to set aside the ex-parte order and the same came to be allowed and the case is pending for evidence. The petitioner has not shown any grounds or reason to transfer the case from the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. Hence, this Court is not inclined to transfer the case.

¶23

5.In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the case in MC.No.3 of 2024, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶24

19.09.2024

¶25

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶26

3/5

¶27

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

¶28

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13469 of 2024

¶29

Internet : Yes / No gns

¶30

K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.

¶31

gns

¶32

¶33

The Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District.

¶34

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13469 of 2024

¶35

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13469 of 2024

¶37

19.09.2024

¶38

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Karthikeyan v. Amirthavarshini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthikeyan v. Amirthavarshini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Thirupathiraj Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Captain Recreation Club Vs The Superintendent of Police

Arunagiri Vs R.Paneerselvam

Palanisamy Vs The Inspector of Police

Sornalatha Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Seenivasan Vs The Inspector of Police