Allowed

R. Sakthipriya v. T. Sudharsan

Madras HC24 Apr 2024TR CMP/28/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of her husband's divorce petition from Salem Family Court to Madurai for her convenience as she lived there with two children. Court transferred the case and directed husband's presence only at essential hearings.

What did the court decide?

Divorce OP transferred from Family Court, Salem to Family Court, Madurai; husband's presence required only at essential hearings; no costs.

R. Sakthipriya Vs T. Sudharsan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.No.28 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.04.2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.No.28 of 2024 & C.M.P.No.761 of 2024

¶7

R.Sakthipriya ... Petitioner

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

T.Sudharsan ... Respondent

¶10

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw OP.No.788 of 2023 pending on the file of the Family Court at Salem and transfer the same to the Family Court at Madurai.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthick For Respondent : Mr.A.V.Arun

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The petitioner and the respondent were married on 25.04.2018 at Salem.

¶14

From the wedlock, two children were born on 02.04.2021 and 12.04.2022. Due to a certain matrimonial differences, the husband has initiated a divorce

¶15

proceeding in OP.No.788 of 2023 before the learned Family Judge at Salem.

¶16

The petitioner is the residing along with her parents at Madurai and

¶17

pleads her inability to travel from Madurai to Salem to attend every hearing.

¶18

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

¶19

1 of 4

¶20

Tr.C.M.P.No.28 of 2024

¶21

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the distance

¶22

between Madurai and Salem is not so considerable that the matter deserves a transfer.

¶23

Taking into consideration the convenience of the wife and the fact that there are two children from the wedding to care for, OP.No.788 of 2023 is withdrawn from the file of the Family Court at Salem and is transferred to the file of the Family Court at Madurai

¶24

The presence of the husband need not be insisted upon by the court for every hearing. It is sufficient if he is present at every essential hearing. On all other non-essential or procedural hearings, he will be represented through a counsel.

¶25

With the aforesaid directions, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶26

24.04.2024

¶27

nl Index : yes / no Neutral Citation : yes / no Speaking / Non Speaking Order

¶28

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

¶29

2 of 4

¶30

Tr.C.M.P.No.28 of 2024

¶31

¶32

1.The Family Court at Salem

¶33

2.The Family Court at Madurai

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3 of 4

¶35

Tr.C.M.P.No.28 of 2024

¶36

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶37

¶38

Tr.C.M.P.No.28 of 2024 & C.M.P.No.761 of 2024

¶39

24.04.2024

¶40

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

R. Sakthipriya v. T. Sudharsan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Sakthipriya v. T. Sudharsan

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

J.Vinita Pricillal Vs J.Stephen Raj

Tasleem Marsiya Vs Mohamed Yasar

Jenipha Kingslin Vs Joseph Victor Premkumar

Sri Jai Priya Vs v. Prasad

Mukesh Jain, Vs Kaushalya

S. Shalini Vs M. Kamesh