Allowed

A.Asifa v. v.Syed Mohammed Shafi.M

Madras HC4 Jun 2024TR CMP/470/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of husband's restitution of conjugal rights suit from Family Court Tiruchirappalli to Erode, citing distance and her inability to travel. Court allowed transfer and directed that the husband appear through counsel for non-essential hearings.

What did the court decide?

O.S.No.15 of 2023 withdrawn to Family Court, Erode; husband may appear through counsel for non-essential hearings; no costs.

A.Asifa Vs v.Syed Mohammed Shafi.M — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Tr.CMP No.470 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.06.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

TR.CMP No.470 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.10749 of 2023

¶7

A.Asifa

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

V.Syed Mohammed Shafi …. Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw O.S.No.15 of 2023 from Family Court, Tiruchirappalli and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Erode.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner is the wife. The husband has filed O.S.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court at Trichirappalli seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner states that she is a permanent resident of Erode and being unable to maintain herself, she has initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the M.C. proceedings has been disposed of. The petitioner pleads that she is unable to travel from Erode, where she is currently residing, to Trichy to contest the case. The petitioner belongs to Islamic persuasion and is aged about 24 years.

¶13

1 / 4

¶14

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

¶15

Tr.CMP No.470 of 2023

¶16

Taking into consideration the difficulties expressed by her and since Erode

¶17

and Trichirappalli are separated by about 200 Kms, I am inclined to consider the petition. When the matter was listed yesterday, there was no representation for the respondent. Therefore, in order to give an opportunity to the respondent, I posted the matter today. Even today, there is no representation.

¶18

Taking into consideration the interest of the wife, this Transfer Petition is

¶19

allowed. The proceedings in O.S.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court at Trichy is withdrawn and transferred to Family Court at Erode. The Family Court, Erode need not insist upon the appearance of the husband for every hearing. For procedural and non-essential hearings, the husband shall be permitted to appear through counsel and for essential hearings, he shall be present in person.

¶20

With the above directions, the Tr.C.M.P. is allowed. No costs. Consequently,

¶21

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

04.06.2024

¶23

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶24

KST

¶25

2 / 4

¶26

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

¶27

Tr.CMP No.470 of 2023

¶28

¶29

1.The Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶30

2.The Family Court, Erode.

¶31

3 / 4

¶32

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

¶33

Tr.CMP No.470 of 2023

¶34

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶35

KST

¶36

TR.CMP No.470 of 2023

¶37

04.06.2024

¶38

4 / 4

¶39

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

A.Asifa v. v.Syed Mohammed Shafi.M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Asifa v. v.Syed Mohammed Shafi.M

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

Avinash Malhotra Vs C. Karthikeyan

A.Niranjana Vs M.Baskar

S.Malini Vs R.Balabaskaran

Saraswathi Vs K. Appavu (died)

Ramani Ammal (Died) Vs R.Kothandaraman

A.Arjunan Vs S.Raman