Allowed

Naomi Dulcie Fiona, v. John Jeya Prakash

Madras HC16 Feb 2024TR CMP(MD)/9/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This transfer petition sought to move a maintenance case from Family Court, Thoothukudi to Family Court, Trichy to be tried with another petition, due to the petitioner's travel difficulties. The respondent did not object, and the transfer was ordered.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of D.O.P.No.428 of 2023 from Family Court, Thoothukudi to Family Court, Trichy to be tried with M.C.No.89 of 2023.

Naomi Dulcie Fiona, Vs John Jeya Prakash — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.9 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.9 of 2024 and C.M.P.(MD).No.198 of 2024

¶7

Naomi Dulcie Fiona ... Petitioner/Respondent

¶8

Vs.

¶9

John Jeya Prakash ... Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

PRAYER : Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code, to withdraw D.O.P.No.428 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Thoothukudi and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Trichy to be tried along with M.C.No.89 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Trichy.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Leninkumar

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.S.Muthumalairaja

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed to withdraw D.O.P.No.428 of 2023 on the file of the Family Court, Thoothukudi and transfer the same to the file

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.9 of 2024

¶18

of the Family Court, Trichy to be tried along with M.C.No.89 of 2023 on

¶19

the file of the Family Court, Trichy.

¶20

2.The facts in brief:

¶21

The marriage was solemnized between the parties on 19.10.2015. Out of their wedlock, she became pregnant, but, it was aborted. Thereafter, they cannot gave birth a child. Treatment was undergoing. Thereafter, citing various reasons, the respondent filed a petition in D.O.P.No.428 of 2023 before the Family Court, Thoothukudi. The petitioner is facing difficulty to travel 280 kilometers to attend the hearing at Thoothukudi. The petitioner also filed M.C.No.89 of 2023 before the Family Court, Trichy. Hence, this petition has been filed.

¶22

3.Heard the counsel on either side.

¶23

4.The respondent has no strong objection to transfer matter to the

¶24

Family Court, Trichy.

¶25

5.In view of the above said submissions, D.O.P.No.428 of 2023 on

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.9 of 2024

¶29

the file of the Family Court, Thoothukudi is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Trichy to try the case along with M.C.No.89 of 2023, pending there.

¶30

6.With the above said directions, this transfer miscellaneous

¶31

petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶32

16.02.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No TM

¶33

¶34

1.The Judge, Family Court, Thoothukudi.

¶35

2.The Judge, Family Court, Trichy.

¶36

3.The Section Officer, E.R.Section/V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶37

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

¶38

3/4

¶39

Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.9 of 2024

¶40

G.ILANGOVAN ,J.

¶41

¶42

Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.9 of 2024

¶43

16.02.2024

¶44

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

¶45

4/4

Naomi Dulcie Fiona, v. John Jeya Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naomi Dulcie Fiona, v. John Jeya Prakash

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

R.Vanathi Vs P.Mahalingam

M.Ganesh Vs R.Maheswari @ Malarvizli

M/s.Pommys Garments (India) Ltd. Vs The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.

Elakkiaselvi Vs Jayaprakash

P.Nagarajan Vs a.Karuppanan

Jaisha Kaslini Vs Biju Schwarze Negger