Dismissed

M.Dinesh Kumar v. M.Ramya Devi

Madras HC5 Apr 2024TR CMP/181/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petitioner's transfer petition seeking to move a maintenance case from Krishnagiri to Vellore Family Court. It rejected the transfer as a matter for family convenience and declared an absolute discretion to penalize unnecessary delays by the husband.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition dismissed; no costs awarded; petitioner directed to appear only for essential hearings.

M.Dinesh Kumar Vs M.Ramya Devi — Maintenance and Alimony | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.No.181 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.04.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.No.181 of 2023 and

¶7

C.M.P.No.4050 of 2023

M.Dinesh Kumar

... Petitioner

1.M.Ramya Devi 2.Minor D.Tharunika

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to withdraw the case in M.C.No.34 of 2022 pending on the file of Family Court, Krishnagiri and transfer the same to the Family Court, Vellore.

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms.R.C.Varsha For Respondents : Mr.R.Gokulnath

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner is the husband. 1^st respondent is the wife and the 2^nd

¶17

respondent is the daughter alleging that the husband is not maintaining her.

¶18

She had moved the Family Court at Krishnagiri in M.C.No.34 of 2022.

¶19

The husband is a resident of Orikkai in Kancheepuram. He states that

¶20

he fears for his life and therefore he wants the case to be transferred from Krishnagiri to Vellore. A petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a beneficial https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/1

¶21

Tr.C.M.P.No.181 of 2023

¶22

legislation for the female members of the Society. It cannot be transferred for the convenience of the husband especially when the women is in distress circumstances.

¶23

The petitioner states that he is unable to travel for every hearing to Krishnagiri. The learned Principal Family Court Judge at Krishnagiri will take this fact into consideration and direct the personal appearance of the petitioner only for essential hearings. For the non essential hearings, the petitioner may be represented through a lawyer.

¶24

It is made clear that if the petitioner tries to drag on the matter or seek

¶25

unnecessary adjournment, absolute discretion is given to the Court to nip the same at its bud.

¶26

With the above, the Tr.C.M.P. stands dismissed. No costs.

¶27

Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

¶28

05.04.2024

¶29

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Sgl

¶30

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

¶31

2/2

¶32

Tr.C.M.P.No.181 of 2023

¶33

¶34

1.The Family Court, Krishnagiri.

¶35

2.The Family Court, Vellore.

¶36

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

¶37

3/3

¶38

Tr.C.M.P.No.181 of 2023

¶39

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶40

Sgl

¶41

Tr.C.M.P.No.181 of 2023

¶42

05.04.2024

¶43

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

¶44

4/4

M.Dinesh Kumar v. M.Ramya Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Dinesh Kumar v. M.Ramya Devi

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

U.Priya Vs N.Daniel

G.Ashwini Rani Vs R.Magesh Kumar

A. Balasubramaniam Vs K. Athiyappan

V.Varsha Devi Vs R.Vivek

R.Malarvizhi Vs R.Vignesh

S.Shanaz Vs H.Mohamed Sharafathulla