Madras High Court
T.Sangavi vs M.Angamuthu
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 02.08.2018
DELIVERED ON : 11.10.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.514 of 2017
and
CMP(MD)No.10813 of 2017
T.Sangavi .. Petitioner
vs
M.Angamuthu .. Respondent
Petition filed under Section 24 r/w 151 of C.P.C., to withdraw the case
in H.M.O.P.No.137 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Uthamapalayam and transfer the same to the learned Principal
Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam and try along with the HMOP.No.61
of 2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Raja Prabhu
For Respondent : Mr.G.Vanjinathan
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent and she has filed the present Tr.CMP.No.514 of 2017 before this Court seeking to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.137 of 2017 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam and transfer the same to the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam and try along with the HMOP.No.61 of 2017 filed by the petitioner/wife.
2.It is the case of the petitioner/wife is that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 09.11.2014 at N.Natarajan M.A.M.P. Memorial Marriage Hall at Cumbum. At the time of marriage, golden jewels worth 80 sovereigns to the petitioner and 10 sovereigns to the respondent were given as dowry and 3 Kgs. Silver, Household articles such as Cot, Fridge, Mixie, etc. worth about Rs.5,00,000/- were given as dowry to the respondent/husband.
3.The petitioner also further states that after marriage, both the petitioner and the respondent were lived for a short span at the petitioner's matrimonial home at Cumbum and thereafter they went to Singapore and lived there happily, till the arrival of the respondent's mother. In the month of March 2015, the respondent's mother, who is http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the mother-in-law of the petitioner came to Singapore, thereafter she demanded Diamond ear-studs and cash worth Rs.5,00,000/- as further dowry. She spokes to the petitioner's parents through phone and demanded the same and thereafter only the respondent and his mother were begun to treat the petitioner with cruelty demanding the said dowry and later on, the respondent/husband has begun to came to the house in drunken mood and abused the petitioner by harassed her regularly by demanding the said dowry.
4.Due to the continuous demand made by the respondent and his mother, the petitioner's mother came to Singapore and given the Diamond ear-studs and F.D. Certificate for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent's mother and sought further time for payment of the balance of Rs.3,00,000/- demanded by both the petitioner and the respondent. Both the respondent and his mother ill-treated the petitioner's mother and the petitioner's mother assured she would give the balance dowry to the persons directed by them in India. Even though, the respondent harassed the petitioner and abused her, due to such the petitioner health became worsen and she was treated in a hospital at Singapore.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
5.Subsequently, the respondent/husband has taken the petitioner to India to the house of the petitioner's parents and demanded the balance dowry amount, for which, the petitioner's parents sought further time, but immediately the respondent/husband has getting angry and the respondent left the petitioner from her parents house and told that the respondent would taken back the petitioner after her parents arranged the balance dowry amount. But, thereafter, the respondent/husband never return back the petitioner's parents house and never contacted her.
6.Due to continuous harassment and non contacted of the petitioner by the respondent, the petitioner went to Singapore to meet him, but he avoided, finally the petitioner has sent a message to him that she would lodged complaint before Singapore Police, thereafter only the respondent replied the petitioner through message by directing the petitioner to go to India and thereafter, the respondent came there and take back the petitioner.
7.The petitioner has returned to India, during the petitioner's parents 60th Anniversary, the petitioner informed the respondent husband and his parents for the petitioner's jewels which are with the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 respondent, but but they refused to give the same and all the efforts for re-union made by the parents ended in vain. Hence, the petitioner has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam in HMOP.No.61 of 2017, since the petitioner now residing at Kumbakonam along with her parents.
8.On receipt of the notice in the petition filed by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights in HMOP.No.61 of 2017, the respondent has filed HMOP.No.137 of 2017 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam only with an intention to harass the petitioner for divorce.
9.Being a lady the petitioner residing with her aged parents, the petitioner suffering even for her day to day needs, in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot travel from Kumbakonam to Uthamapalayam, which is about 300 kms distance from Kumbakonam. She also further states that apart from this, she facing severe threat on the part of the respondent and his parents, hence the petitioner's life is in danger, if the petitioner entered into Uthamapalayam for attending the Court hearings, since the respondent/husband is influenced person in the locality. Therefore, there is no safety to the http://www.judis.nic.in 6 petitioner's life, if the petitioner entered Uthamapalayam lonely for attending the case.
10.In the above circumstances, the petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent has filed the present Tr.CMP.No.514 of 2017 before this Court seeking to transfer the case in HMOP.No.137 of 2017 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalaym, filed by the respondent/husband to the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, to try along with HMOP.No.61 of 2017.
11.I heard Mr.S.Raja Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Vanjinathan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the documents available on record.
12.Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent were took place on 09.11.2014 at N.Natarajan M.A.M.P. Memorial Marriage Hall at Cumbum.
13.After marriage, both the petitioner and the respondent were lived in the petitioner's matrimonial house and both of them went to Singapore and lived there happily. When the respondent's mother, http://www.judis.nic.in 7 who came to Singapore in the month of March 2015, a dispute was arosed between the petitioner and the respondent, since the respondent's mother has demanding more money from the petitioner and her parents.
14.Though the petitioner's parents requesting further time for payment of the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- of dowry and as final, the petitioner's mother came to Singapore and given the diamond ear-studs and F.D. Certificate for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent's mother for the petitioner and sought further time to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, but even then the respondent's mother was ill-treated the petitioner.
15.It is further case of the petitioner that she filed HMOP.No.61 of 2017 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, whereas the respondent husband has filed HMOP.No.137 of 2017 before the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam for divorce.
16.In Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that convenience of wife is of prime consideration for travelling to attend the Court. Asking the http://www.judis.nic.in 8 petitioner, who is the wife has filed the petition for conjugal rights in HMOP.No.61 of 2017 before the learned Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam, since she resides with her parents house at Kumbakonam, and the respondent / husband has filed HMOP.No.137 of 2017 before the learned Sub Court, Uthamapalayam.
17.It is further case of the petitioner is that the distance between Kumbakonam and Uthamapalayam is about 300 kms, in which she could not able to attend the Court at Uthamapalayam without anybody accompanying with the petitioner since her parents aged about 66 years.
18.The Hon'ble Supreme Court very categorically held in the cases that the convenience of the wife to be considered for attending the case. Accordingly, I am inclined to allow the petition filed by the petitioner in HMOP.No.61 of 2017 for seeking transfer from the Sub- Court, Uthamapalayam to the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam.
19.In the result:
(a) this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed;
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
(b) the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam, is directed to transfer the HMOP.No. 137 of 2017 from its file to the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(c) on receipt of the entire papers, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, is directed to take both the HMOP.Nos.61 and 137 of 2017 and to dispose of the same by joint trial within a period of four months thereafter.
(d) No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.10.2018
vsv
Note:Issue order copy on 01.03.2019
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam.
2.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam. http://www.judis.nic.in 10 M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vsv Pre-delivery order made in Tr.C.M.P.(MD)No.514 of 2017 and CMP(MD)No.10813 of 2017 11.10.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in