Allowed

A.Kavitha v. Balaji

Madras HC22 Apr 2024TR CMP/62/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought transfer of husband's guardianship (GWOP) proceedings from Tiruppur to Perambalur, citing travel difficulty with her young child. The Madras High Court allowed the transfer, directing that the husband need appear only at essential hearings and may be represented by counsel at procedural hearings.

What did the court decide?

GWOP.No.455 of 2023 withdrawn from Family Court, Tiruppur and transferred to Family Court, Perambalur; no costs; connected CMPs closed.

A.Kavitha Vs Balaji — Child Custody and Guardianship | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.No.62 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.04.2024

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.No.62 of 2024 & C.M.P.Nos.1456 & 1457 of 2024

A.Kavitha

... Petitioner

-Versus-

Balaji ... Respondent

¶11

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw GWOP.No.455 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Tiruppur and transfer the same to the Family Court, Perambalur.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mrs.B.N.Sivagamasundari For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The wife is the petitioner. She got married to the respondent on 13.11.2016. From the wedlock, a child was born on 20.12.2019. The child is now with the mother.

¶15

1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

Tr.C.M.P.No.62 of 2024

¶18

GWOP proceedings have been initiated by the respondent/husband before the Family Court at Tiruppur. The wife is a permanent resident of Veppanthattai in Perambalur District. It will be difficult for the wife to travel from Perambalur to Tiruppur along with the child.

¶19

Taking into consideration the convenience of the wife, GWOP.No.455

¶20

of 2023 is withdrawn from the file of the Family Court at Tiruppur and is transferred to the file of the Family Court at Perambalur. 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.

¶21

With the aforesaid directions, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition

¶22

is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

22.04.2024

¶24

¶25

Index : yes / no Neutral Citation : yes / no

¶26

2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

Tr.C.M.P.No.62 of 2024

¶29

Speaking / Non Speaking Order

¶30

¶31

1.The Family Court, Tiruppur

¶32

2.The Family Court, Perambalur.

¶33

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

¶34

Tr.C.M.P.No.62 of 2024

¶35

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

¶36

¶37

Tr.C.M.P.No.62 of 2024 & C.M.P.Nos.1456 & 1457 of 2024

¶38

22.04.2024

¶39

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

A.Kavitha v. Balaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Kavitha v. Balaji

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

Kavitha Vs Chakkarabani

S.Rajendran Vs K.Chenniappan (Died) 1. K.Ramasamy

S. Kirubananthan Vs Kamsala

A.S. Rekha Vs T. Praddeep

K. Saraswathy Vs Chandran

Akshaya Vs Omprakash