Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2026 (MAD)

Y. Sweety & Another v. Manuel Inbakumar & Another

2007-07-04

S.ASHOK KUMAR

body2007
Judgment :- Transfer CMP No: 212 of 2007 is filed to withdraw and transfer the IDOP.No.2809 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of Prl.Judge, Vellore to have a joint trial with IDOP.No:2 of 2006.) Common Order: This Transfer CMP has been filed by the wife to withdraw the IDOP.No.2 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Vellore and transfer the same to the file of II Additional Family Court, Chennai to have a joint trial with IDOP.No:2809 of 2006. 2. Transfer CMP No: 212 of 2007 is filed by the husband to withdraw and transfer the IDOP.No.2809 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of Prl. Judge, Vellore to have a joint trial with IDOP.No:2 of 2006. 3. The wife has filed Tr.CMP.NO.128/07 seeking transfer of the IDOP filed by the husband for divorce from Vellore to Chennai. According to her since she is more interested only to live with the respondent herein she has filed the IDOP in the II Additional Family Court, Chennai under Section 32 for restitution of conjugal rights. She has stated that she is not having any assistant to accompany her to Vellore to attend the case. Further she hails from a poor family and is not in a position to spend considerable amount towards travel. Further, according to her, the litigants are having more opportunity to express their case before the Family Court Judge in an in-camera proceedings, because the proceedings before the Family Courts are very cordial and admirable, whereas the Principal District Court, is always jammed with variety of cases dawn to dusk and the learned Prl.Judge may not be in a position to give more attention to the petitioners case. Further the Family courts are designed only for the purpose to deal with family cases. 4. The husband filed the Tr.CMP.No:212 of 2007 seeking transfer of the IDOP No:2809 of 2006 filed by the wife before the Family court, Chennai, for restitution of conjugal rights along with the IDOP filed by him for divorce at Vellore. He states that he is presently employed at Ireland and knowing fully well, she has deliberately filed the petition at Chennai only to harass him that too one year after filing of the petition for divorce by him at Vellore. He states that he is presently employed at Ireland and knowing fully well, she has deliberately filed the petition at Chennai only to harass him that too one year after filing of the petition for divorce by him at Vellore. According to him, the parties can engage counsels and the personal appearance is required only at the time of trial stage. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submitted that the marriage took place at Vellore, the parties last resided at Vellore and therefore the wife cannot present any petition at Family Court, Chennai. Learned Counsel also denied the averment of the wife that without an assistant she may not be in a position to go to Vellore to attend the case effectively. In fact, she had visited UAE of her own in the year 2003 even prior to marriage seeking job and subsequently in the year 2005 to Ireland without any help or assistant accompanying her. Therefore it is quite strange that she requires the assistant to go to Vellore which is within 140 km., from Chennai. 6. Further, the very fact that the wife can advance her own case in the family court without any legal assistance shows her confidence that how effectively she can represent herself. Further she is a qualified B.Sc., Nursing and she has been in employment since 1998 as Staff Nurse and also sought employment in abroad. This will only clearly show that she is independent both financially as well as mentally. As on date she is working as Staff Nurse at Kalyani Hospital, Triplicane, Chennai. She is residing along with her parents. In these circumstances the wife does not deserve any lenient treatment on any ground whatsoever from this court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the wife also relied on the judgment of Apex Court reported in 2003 (11) SCC 731; 2004 (13) SCC 405 and 2004 (13) SCC 497 . In Gayatri Mohapatra Vs. Ashit Kumar Panda, reported in 2003 (11) SCC 731, the Apex Court observed when the pleadings established that the wife had travelled from place to place in connection with her natal family business, the ground of difficulty in travelling alleged by the wife is not valid for seeking transfer. In Kanagalakshmi Vs. In Gayatri Mohapatra Vs. Ashit Kumar Panda, reported in 2003 (11) SCC 731, the Apex Court observed when the pleadings established that the wife had travelled from place to place in connection with her natal family business, the ground of difficulty in travelling alleged by the wife is not valid for seeking transfer. In Kanagalakshmi Vs. A.Venkatesan, reported in 2004 (13) SCC 405 , the Supreme Court in a case where the petitioner wife seeking transfer of pending dispute from Bandra, Mumbai to Tirunelveli, on the ground of difficulty in travelling from Tirunelveli to Bombay to pursue the case, held that since the husband prepared to bear the expenses not only of the wife but also the person accompanying her, dismissed the Transfer Petition with a direction to pay the expenses. In Meenakshi Vs. Mukesh Kumar, reported in 2004 (13) SCC 497 , also the Supreme Court dismissed the Transfer Petition filed by the wife holding that that in view of the statement made on behalf of the husband that full care of safety and security of the wife shall be taken and conveyance charges shall be borne by the husband for her traveling by taxi. 8. In the above facts and circumstances of the two cases, particularly when it is the case of the husband that the wife had already visited abroad twice, and also she is residing along with her parents and working at Kalyani Hospital, Chennai, it cannot be stated that she cannot travel without any assistants or that it will be difficult for her to travel a distance of 140 Kms., from Chennai to Vellore, and therefore, I am of the view there is no merit in the petition filed by the wife seeking withdrawal and transfer of the IDOP filed by the husband for divorce at Vellore. However, the husband shall pay a sum of Rs.400/= to the wife for every hearing in which the wife attends by travelling from Chennai to Vellore. 9. In the result, the Tr.CMP.No:128 of 2007 is dismissed. Consequently, Tr.CMP.No:212 of 2007 is allowed since the IDOP.NO:2809 of 2006 filed by the wife before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai is for conjugal rights and I am of the opinion that in the interest of both the parties, joint trial of both the cases should be conducted by the same court. 10. Consequently, Tr.CMP.No:212 of 2007 is allowed since the IDOP.NO:2809 of 2006 filed by the wife before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai is for conjugal rights and I am of the opinion that in the interest of both the parties, joint trial of both the cases should be conducted by the same court. 10. Both the Transfer CMPs are ordered in the above terms. Consequently, connected MPs are closed. No costs.