Madras High Court
Pavithra @ Sonia vs Saravanan on 17 December, 2018
Author: R.Pongiappan
Bench: R.Pongiappan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
TR.C.M.P.No.747 of 2018
& CMP.No.18390 of 2018
Pavithra @ Sonia .. Petitioner
Vs.
Saravanan .. Respondent
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 CPC to
withdraw HMOP.No.552 of 2017 from the file of the Family Court,
Pudhucherry and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court,
Chengalpattu.
For petitioner : Mr.B.Thiyagarajan
for M/s.G.Mohanakrishnan
For respondent : Mr.R.Kumaravel
ORDER
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to withdraw HMOP.No.552 of 2017 pending on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Puducherry and to transfer the same to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Chengalpet.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is her husband. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 01.09.2018 at Duraipattammal Thirumana Mandapam, Chengalpattu as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, both the petitioner and the respondent living together in their matrimonial home. Due to wed-lock, the petitioner gave birth to one male child and thereafter, both the petitioner and the respondent shifted their matrimonial home to the up-stair portion of the respondent's house. On 29.04.2011, the petitioner gave birth to one more male child and as of now both the children are residing under the care and custody of the petitioner. After the birth of second child, due to the difference of opinion arose between the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner left the matrimonial home and joined with her parents at Chengalpet. Further, she filed an application for the relief of interim maintenance against the respondent before the Family Court, Chengalpet. The said petition is now pending before the Family Court, Chengalpet in MC.No.19 of 2015.
3. In the meanwhile, the respondent has filed a petition against the petitioner, under Section 13(1)(ia) & 13 (1) (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act http://www.judis.nic.in 3 25/1955, seeking the relief of annulling the marriage happened between them on 01.09.2008. The said petition is now pending on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court at Pondicherry in MOP No.552 of 2017. In the said circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the present petition to transfer the said proceedings pending on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puducherry to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Chengalpet.
4. According to the petitioner, the distance between Puducherry and Chengalpet is about 100 kilometers, being a lady, it is very difficult to her in attending the Court proceedings pending on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puducherry alongwith her two children.
5. Per contra, by filing counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that it is not difficult for the petitioner in attending the Court proceedings at Puducherry.
6. Heard, Mr.B.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned counsel for the respondent.
7. It is not disputed on the side of the respondent that the petitioner is living with her parents at Door No.105-A, Madurai Veeran Koil Street, http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Chengalpattu. Further, it is admitted that she is not having any independent income and depending on her parents for her day-today expenses. In the said circumstances, it is difficult to her in attending the Court proceedings at Puducherry. Apart from that for taking care of her two children, the presence of the petitioner is very much necessary at Chengalpet. Before ordering this petition, this Court has gone through the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi and another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta reported in 2008(9) SCC 353 and in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another reported in AIR 2002 SC 396, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the convenience of the wife must be given preference in the matrimonial proceedings. Further, in the affidavit and the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner and the respondent respectively, they made serious allegations against each other, since the said allegations are pertaining to their matrimonial life, the same has to be dealt with only by the trial Court. In respect to this petition the only issue raised is whether the petitioner projected sufficient cause for allowing this petition.
8. In this case, in view of the fact that the petitioner is residing at Chegalpattu, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is very much reasonable. In other wise, being a male member, it is not difficult to the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 respondent for attending the Court proceeding at Chengalpattu. Further, a petition in MC.No.19 of 2015 filed by the petitioner seeking for the relief of interim maintenance is also pending before the same Court.
9. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed. Accordingly, the learned Judge, Family Court, Puducherry is directed to transmit all the records pertaining to H.M.O.P.No.552 of 2017 to the file of Family Court, Chengalpattu within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such records, the learned Judge, Family Court, Chengalpattu, is directed to dispose of both the cases as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.12.2018 dn Internet:yes http://www.judis.nic.in 6 R.PONGIAPPAN.J., dn To
1. The Judge, Family Court, Puducherry
2. The Judge, Family Court, Chegalpattu TR.C.M.P.No.747 of 2018 17.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in