Allowed

Menaka v. N.Rajasekaran

Madras HC4 Apr 2024TR CMP/128/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of her husband's matrimonial petition from Sankari to Erode, citing her father's death and two schoolgoing children. The court transferred the case to Sub Court, Tiruchengode as a compromise and directed that physical presence of parties not be insisted upon unless essential.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P. No.158 of 2022 withdrawn from Sub Court, Sankari and transferred to Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode; no costs; connected CMP closed.

Menaka Vs N.Rajasekaran — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Tr.CMP,.No.128 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.04.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

Tr.CMP.No.128 of 2023

¶7

and CMP.No.2672 of 2023

¶8

Menaka W/o. N. Rajasekaran ... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

N. Rajasekaran S/o. Nachimuthu. .. Respondent

¶11

PRAYER:- The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw H.M.O.P. No.158 of 2022

¶12

pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankari and transfer the

¶13

same to the file of Family Court, Erode.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. M. Guruprasad For Respondent : Ms. K. Komala for Mr. T.N. Rangesh Kanna

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petition has been filed to withdraw H.M.O.P. No.158 of 2022

¶17

on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sankari and transfer the same to the

¶18

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

¶19

1/4

¶20

Tr.CMP,.No.128 of 2023

¶21

file of Family Court, Erode.

¶22

Heard M. Guruprasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. K. Komala for Mr. T.N. Rangesh Kanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶23

The petitioner claims that the only support that she had from her father does not exist any more because he recently passed away. Apart from that, she has two girl children who are studying in school and therefore she finds it difficult to travel from Erode where she is residing now, to the Courts at Sankari.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent states that if the case is transferred to the Family Court at Erode, his presence would be essential for every hearing, which would put his life into difficulty and on the alternative, the learned counsel submits that if the case is transferred to the Sub Court, Tiruchengode, it will be beneficial to both parties.

¶25

In the light of the above submissions, the case in H.M.O.P No.158 of 2022 pending on the file of Sub Court, Sankari is withdrawn and transferred to the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode. The learned Subordinate Judge is requested not to insist on the presence

¶26

of either the petitioner or the respondent unless or until their physical 2/4

¶27

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

¶28

Tr.CMP,.No.128 of 2023

¶29

presence before the Court is essential for the purpose of hearing.

¶30

With the above direction, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous

¶31

Petition is allowed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

04.04.2024

¶33

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No mjs

¶34

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

¶35

3/4

¶36

Tr.CMP,.No.128 of 2023

¶37

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

¶38

Mjs

¶39

¶40

The Subordinate Court, Sankari.

¶41

The Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode

¶42

Tr. CMP. No.111 of 2023

¶43

04.04.2024

¶44

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

¶45

4/4

Menaka v. N.Rajasekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Menaka v. N.Rajasekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Vimala Devi Pandurangan Vs Janapathy Christo Prakash @ Christopher J.Paul

V.Nandhini Devi Vs M.Jeyachandran

M/S.Sha Uthamchand Devichandji Vs Y.Doraisamy

Duraisamy Vs Hakeem Raja

N.R.Ponnusamy Vs Kandasamy

Dhamodharan Vs Minor Raveendar