Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1853 (MAD)

P. Mahalakshmi v. M. Ravichandran

2006-07-25

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2006
Judgment :- (Prayer: This petition has been filed to withdraw HMOP.No.43 of 2004 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Cheyyar and transfer the same to the file of Family Court at Chennai.) This petition has been filed by the wife to withdraw HMOP.No.43/2004 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Cheyyar and transfer the same to the file of Family Court at Chennai on the ground that she is residing at Door No.56, Gandhi Road, Panchalai Amman Koil Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai-106. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would represent that the husband/respondent herein is also residing in Chennai at Door No.414, 37th Cross Street, 6th Block, C.M.D.A. Colony, Maduravoyal, Chennai-95 and that since the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place at Cheyyar, the husband/respondent herein has filed the HMOP at Sub-Court, Cheyyar and that the petitioner herein finds it very difficult for appearing for each and every hearing before the Sub-Court, Cheyyar, besides she has to look after her only son. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the case reported in AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 396 (Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and another), wherein it has been held that in a case of matrimonial proceedings the convenience of the wife must be looked into. The relevant portion of the said dictum is as follows: "It is the husband's suit against the wife. It is the wife's convenience that, therefore, must be looked at. The circumstances indicated above are sufficient to make the transfer petition absolute. Accordingly, Matrimonial Case No.30 of 2000 pending before the VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ara, Bhojpur, Bihar shall stand transferred to the District Judge, Delhi, who shall hear it himself or assign it for hearing to an appropriate forum." The above said dictum has been followed by this High Court in a case reported in 2004(3) MLJ 380 (Baby Chitra Vs. K.Radhakrishnan), and it has been held that: "It is fair on the part of the Court to order a lady to travel such a long distance for showing appearance on each and every hearing and the feasibility is only to have the case decided by a Court of her own place" 4. K.Radhakrishnan), and it has been held that: "It is fair on the part of the Court to order a lady to travel such a long distance for showing appearance on each and every hearing and the feasibility is only to have the case decided by a Court of her own place" 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent/husband, who would represent that the nature of the job of the respondent/husband is touring, and it will be convenient for him to attend the Court at Cheyyar. But, even in the HMOP filed by the husband/respondent herein the address for both the husband and wife, has been furnished as they are permanently residing at Madras. Under such circumstance, no prejudice will be caused to either of the parties, if the HMOP is transferred from the file of the Sub-Court, Cheyyar to the file of Family Court, Chennai. On the other hand it will be convenient for both parties to attend the Court in person if it is transferred to the file of Family Court, Chennai. 5. In the result, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed and HMOP.No.43/2004 pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Cheyyar is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the file of Family Court, Chennai. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.