Allowed

S.Jyothi v. N.Marul Sudhan @ Sudhan @ Kumar

Madras HC8 Apr 2024TR CMP/37/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras allowed a Transfer Petition filed by a wife transferring proceedings from Subordinate Court, Hosur to Family Court, Chennai. The transfer was granted due to the wife's residence in Chennai, inability to travel 300 km, custody of a minor, and the respondent's lack of objection.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of H.M.O.P.No.217 of 2023 from Subordinate Court, Hosur to Family Court, Chennai allowed.

S.Jyothi Vs N.Marul Sudhan @ Sudhan @ Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.No.37 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.04.2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.No.37 of 2024 & C.M.P.No.999 of 2024

S.Jyothi

... Petitioner

-Versus-

N.Marul Sudhan @ Sudhan @ Kumar ... Respondent

¶11

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw and transfer the H.M.O.P.No.217 of 2023 from the Subordinate Court, Hosur to Family Court, Chennai.

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms.R.Varalakshmi For Respondent : Ms.R.Poornima

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The husband has initiated HMOP.No.217 of 2023 on the file of the

¶15

learned Subordinate Judge at Hosur. The wife is a resident of Choolaimedu, Chennai. She is unable to travel 300-odd kilometres to contest the proceedings. Hence, on the grounds of inconvenience and on the grounds that she has

¶16

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

¶17

1 of 4

¶18

Tr.C.M.P.No.37 of 2024

¶19

custody of a minor girl child, she has filed this transfer petition.

¶20

Ms.Poornima, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband

¶21

has no objection to the transfer of proceedings from the Sub Court at Hosur to the Family Court at Chennai.

¶22

Considering the fact that the petitioner has to travel a long distance and also taking into consideration that no objection has been tendered by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

The Family Court, Chennai, need not insist upon the parties appearing

¶24

for every hearing but only on hearings where their presence is essential.

¶25

08.04.2024

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2 of 4

¶29

Tr.C.M.P.No.37 of 2024

¶30

¶31

1.The Subordinate Court, Hosur

¶32

2.The Family Court, Chennai

¶33

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

¶34

Tr.C.M.P.No.37 of 2024

¶35

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶36

¶37

Tr.C.M.P.No.37 of 2024 & C.M.P.No.999 of 2024

¶38

08.04.2024

¶39

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

S.Jyothi v. N.Marul Sudhan @ Sudhan @ Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Jyothi v. N.Marul Sudhan @ Sudhan @ Kumar

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

L.Saran (Died) L.Pushpammal (died) 1. S.Renuka Vs L.Arun @ Murugaiya

M.Dinesh Kumar Vs M.Ramya Devi

Abi @ Mahalakshmi Vs Selvaganesh

Ashwini Alias Gowthami Vs P Saravanan Rao

S.Bharathi Priya Vs K.Ramesh Kannan

G.Sankararaman Vs Sangeetha