Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2441 (MAD)

M. Deepalakshmi v. R. Ramesh

2008-07-15

K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2008
Judgment :- 1. This Transfer Petition has been preferred by the respondent in H.M.O.P. No.254 of 2006 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu for withdrawal of the proceedings from the said Sub-Court and for transfer of the same to any other Court at Madurai. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Application for transfer, it is the case of the petitioner that her marriage with the respondent was solemnised in accordance with Hindu Rites on 12. 2002 at Madurai and after the marriage they lived at Coimbatore. In the lawful wedlock two children were born to them as twins in the year 2002. Subsequently the petitioner was sent to Madurai in the year 2004 by the respondent and after that he did not take care for the petitioner and her children and as such, she is presently residing at Madurai along with her children and parents. The father of the petitioner is stated to be a retired Air Force Personnel. The petitioner is maintained by her father with his meagre pension. 3. While so, the petitioner received a notice in H.M.O.P. No.254 of 2006 from the Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu and the said proceedings pertains to divorce Petition filed by the respondent to dissolve the marriage between the parties. Accordingly the petitioner has filed the present Petition with a prayer to transfer the same to any other Court at Madurai, where she is presently residing with her children and police. 4. I have heard Thiru K.V. Sundararajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Thiru N. Sudharsan, learned counsel for respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent is presently working at Bangalore and as such no prejudice would be caused in case the proceeding is transferred to the Court at Madurai. It was the further contention of the learned counsel that the Court at Madurai has got jurisdiction in the matter in view of solemnization of the marriage at Madurai. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is a serious threat to the life of the respondent from the relatives of the petitioner and as such it is not advisable for him to conduct the proceedings at Madurai. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side as well as the available materials on record. 8. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side as well as the available materials on record. 8. It is found from the affidavit filed in support of the Application for transfer that the petitioner is residing at Madurai along with her two children. Admittedly, the marriage has also been conducted at Madurai and as such the Court at Madurai has also got jurisdiction to decide the issue between the parties. The respondent is stated to be residing at Bangalore and as such he might not have for any problem for transfer of the case from the Court at Chengalpattu to any other Court at Madurai except on the ground of alleged threat from the side of the petitioner. 9. While deciding an Application for transfer of proceedings, the prime consideration would be the ends of justice. It is not the mere convenience of the parties that is material. In case it is demonstrated that the trial in a chosen forum would result in denial of justice to a party to the proceedings, the same is a valid ground to order transfer of proceedings. However there cannot be any straight jacket formula in all the transfer matters and it all depends upon the facts of each case. It is true that when transfer is permitted it would cause inconvenience to the other party, but the paramount consideration being one to do complete justice, such inconvenience has only to be ignored. 10. From the affidavit filed in support of the present Petition, I am convinced that the interest of justice requires the transfer of the proceedings to the Court at Madurai. Therefore I am inclined to allow this Transfer Petition. 11. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed and the proceedings in H.M.O.P. No.254 of 2006 is withdrawn from the file of Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpattu and is transferred to the file of Family Court, Madurai for disposal on merits and as per law. 12. Since the respondent is reported to be staying at Bangalore on account of his employment, he is permitted to move an Application before the Family Court, Madurai to dispense with his personal appearance except for giving evidence. Such Application should be considered by the learned Trial Judge on merits and as per law. 12. Since the respondent is reported to be staying at Bangalore on account of his employment, he is permitted to move an Application before the Family Court, Madurai to dispense with his personal appearance except for giving evidence. Such Application should be considered by the learned Trial Judge on merits and as per law. In case the respondent faces any difficulty from the petitioner or her men from appearing before the Court at Madurai and to conduct the proceedings, it would be open to the respondent to file a Petition before the Superintendent of Police, Madurai for police protection on the date of his appearance before the Court and in such event, necessary protection shall be given by the concerned police. 13. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of subject to the above observation. Consequently the connected MP is closed. No costs. After the pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter is in the stage of trial before the Trial Court and as such a direction may be issued to the learned Family Court Judge, Madurai, for an early disposal of the Original Proceedings. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Judge is directed to take steps to dispose of the Original Proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.