Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 598 (MAD)

R. Chinnaswamy v. K. Chandra

2000-06-26

V.KANAGARAJ

body2000
ORDER: This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ husband against the respondent wife praying to withdraw O.P.No.23 of 1999 pending on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sankari and transfer the same to the II Additional Family Court, Chennai to be tried along with O.P.No.1660 of 1998. 2. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and upon hearing the learned counsel for both what comes to be known is that the petitioner herein filed O.P.No.1660 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, seeking a decree of divorce against the respondent on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and that O.P.No.23 of 1999, which is sought to be transferred to the Court of II Additional Family Judge, Chennai and which is now pending on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sankari was filed by the respondent/ wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. 3. The petitioner would contend in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that to harass him, his wife, the respondent herein, has filed O.P.No.23 of 1999 for restitution of conjugal rights and also filed M.C.No.1 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sankari seeking maintenance in a vindictive manner and thereafter filed Transfer C.M.P.No.14884 of 1999 on the file of this Court seeking transfer of O.P.No.1660 of 1998 pending on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sankari to be tried along with O.P.No.23 of 1999 and the same had been dismissed by this Court on 15.12.1999. 4. The petitioner, on ground that identical issues of fact and law arise in both petitions and further undertaking to pay the Second Class Railway Fare to the respondent and her escort from Sankari to Chennai to attend to the Court, whenever it is posted, would pray to allow the above petition. 5. 4. The petitioner, on ground that identical issues of fact and law arise in both petitions and further undertaking to pay the Second Class Railway Fare to the respondent and her escort from Sankari to Chennai to attend to the Court, whenever it is posted, would pray to allow the above petition. 5. Though this Court, by order dated 15.12.1999, dismissed the Transfer C.M.P.No.14884 of 1999 filed by the respondent herein seeking transfer of O.P.No.1660 of 1998 pending on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sankari to be tried along with O.P.No.23 of 1999 observing that the husband is willing to pay for the travelling expenses of the wife and also of the person who accompanies her, in which event, there cannot be any difficulty for the wife to travel from Sankari to Madras. The same cannot be taken as a ground for allowing this petition, which is filed by the husband seeking the wife to come all the way and to attend all the proceedings here at Chennai, where the petitioner husband is said to be permanently residing. 6. Further more, the learned counsel for the respondent wife would bring to the notice of this Court that entire enquiry procedure has been completed in the divorce O.P. filed by the husband in O.P.No.1660 of 1998 and both parties adduced their evidence and it is waiting only for the order to be pronounced and there is nothing left with in O.P.No.1660 of 1998 excepting for the II Additional Family Court, Chennai to deliver the order. The learned counsel for the respondent would further submit that O.P.No.23 of 1999 filed by the wife before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sankari is not matured so as to be clubbed or jointly heard along with O.P.No.1660 of 1998 and hence without obstructing the order to be delivered in O.P.No.1660 of 1998, the proceeding in O.P.No.23 of 1999 could be allowed to be held in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sankari wherein it has been originally instituted and kept pending and would pray to dismiss the above petition. 7. 7. Considering all the facts and circumstances encircling the whole case, this Court is not willing to stall the further proceedings of delivering the order in O.P.No.1660 of 1998 pending on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai by transferring O.P.No.23 of 1999 pending on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sankari to be tried together since it comes to be known that the entire enquiry proceedings in O.P.No.1660 of 1998 are over. With such views and on further consideration that for travelling from Sankari to Chennai, in spite of the petitioner/ husband paying expenses to the wife and her escort, utilising the same, it is feasible and always advisable only for a male member to travel the distances without making a female, taking all the chances to come over to Chennai, to make a stay over here further taking the risk of travelling alone, if nobody is in a position to accompany her. Hence, it is under no circumstances advisable to seek a lady to travel all the distance from Sankari to Chennai but it should be on the vice versa. 8. For all the above discussions held, the above Transfer C.M.P. does not at all merit acceptance and the same is liable only for dismissal. 9. In result, Tr.C.M.P.No.303 of 2000 fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. 10. Consequently, C.M.P.No.304 of 2000 is also dismissed.