Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4237 (MAD)

T. Vijaya Ponnammal v. R. Subbaiah

2008-11-17

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- Tr.C.M.P.is filed to withdraw and transfer the H.M.O.P.No.517/2007 from the file of Family Court, Coimbatore to Sub-Court, Thoothukudi. The petitioner/respondent/wife has filed the present Transfer C.M.P.No.383/2007 praying for issuance of an order by this Court to withdraw and transfer the H.M.O.P.No.517/2007 from the file of Family Court, Coimbatore to the file of Sub-Court, Thoothukudi. 2. The petitioner/wife in the affidavit filed in support of the Transfer C.M.P. interalia averred that her marriage with the respondent/husband has been solemnized on 6. 2000 at Mudivaithanendal Village near Thoothukudi and after the marriage she has been living with the respondent/husband and because of her ill-health she has gone to her parents house for taking treatment for Pancreatic Head Calculus with Obstructive Jaundice and also for upper abdominal pain etc and therefore it is not possible for her to undertake the travelling all the way from Mudivaithanendal to Coimbatore which is about more than 400 kms and if she is to attend the hearing of the case at Coimbatore then somebody in the family has to accompany her and the fact is that no one is there in her family to accompany her and more further she has no separate income to meet out the travel expenses and therefore prays for allowing the Transfer C.M.P., in the interests of justice. 3. In the counter filed by the respondent/husband it is among other things mentioned that the petitoner/wife has filed a case against him and his family members under the Dowry Prohibition Act in H.M.O.P.No.517 of 2007 before the Family Court at Coimbatore and the same is pending and that the petitioner/wife does not appear before the Family Court at Coimbatore and gives lame excuse for her absence and due to the non-appearance of the petitioner/wife, an exparte order has been passed in H.M.O.P.No.517/2007 on the file of Family Court at Coimbatore and the same is pending and that the petitioner/wife has not made out any prima facie case for allowing the Transfer C.M.P. .4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife in the typed set of papers has enclosed discharge summary of the petitioner/wife etc. In the discharge summary issued by the Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai in respect of the petitioner/wife it is mentioned that the petitioner/wife has been referred "as a case of Distal CBD stone for further management. After admission this patient was thoroughly investigated and on 26. In the discharge summary issued by the Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai in respect of the petitioner/wife it is mentioned that the petitioner/wife has been referred "as a case of Distal CBD stone for further management. After admission this patient was thoroughly investigated and on 26. 2005 ERCP was done which revealed an impacted stone at the papilla (pancreatic stone) stone was extracted and NBD placed. Post procedure period was uneventful. Patient improved symptomatically and was discharged" and she has been asked to come for review after 15 days. In the CT scan report of Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited, Thoothukudi in respect of the petitioner/wife, the scan reveals abdomen pain and the report of radiologist shows (R)overy shows a small upset and no evidence of calculas in pancreas in seen and a normal study. In another discharge summary in respect of the petitioner/wife it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner/wife is a case of pancreatic head calculus with obstructive jaundice. ERCP stone removal done on 26. 2005, was admitted with c/o pain in right hypochondrial region. After admission this patient was thoroughly investigated and treated conservatively. Patient improved symptomatically and was discharged and has been directed to attend review after 15 days. 5. From the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the petitioner/wife it is evident that the petitioner/wife has got some ailment connected with abdomen pain etc., Generally speaking, as per section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure when a Court of law deals with the transfer application of the wife, the convenience of wife must be taken as a prime consideration. Of course, the ultimate aim of a court of law is to deliver justice to parties. .6. In the present case it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife that the petitioner/wife has been granted the maintenance of Rs.500/-by the Sub-Court, Thoothukudi and later the amount of maintenance has been inreased to Rs.600/-. .6. In the present case it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife that the petitioner/wife has been granted the maintenance of Rs.500/-by the Sub-Court, Thoothukudi and later the amount of maintenance has been inreased to Rs.600/-. Taking note of the fact that the petiitioner/wife is having some ailment connected with abdomen pain and she is taking treatment periodically and bearing-in-mind the convenience of wife, this Court opines that the petitioner/wife stands in a better footing than that of the respondent/husband and her interest is of prime consideration and in that view of the matter this Court allows the Transfer C.M.P. and directs the withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.517/2007 from the file of Family Court, Coimbatore to Sub-Court, Thoothukudi and the Family Court, Coimbatore is directed to transfer H.M.O.P.No.517 of 2007 from its file to the Sub-Court, Thoothukudi within a week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Later the Sub-Court, Thoothukudi is directed to dispose of the aforesaid H.M.O.P. within a period of two months, after providing due opportunity to both parties in the manner known to law. 7. With these observations, Tr.C.M.P.No.383/2007 is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 is also disposed of.