Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4360 (MAD)

J. Vanishree v. G. Jayachandran

2008-11-25

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- The petitioner/wife has filed this transfer civil miscellaneous petition praying for issuance of an order by this Court to transfer H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2007 from the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore to the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai. 2. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2007 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore against the petitioner/wife praying for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner/wife has filed Crl.M.P.No.102 of 2007 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai praying for the relief of maintenance and it appears that the petitioner/wife has been awarded with a monthly maintenance of Rs.2000/- to be payable by the respondent/husband. As against the order passed in Crl.M.P.102 of 2007, the respondent/husband has filed Crl.A.No.95 of 2007 on the file of First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and the same is pending. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the time when the respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2007 before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, on the footing that the petitioner/husband and the respondent/husband lastly resided together at Cuddalore and now both of them are residing at Chennai viz., respondent/husband is residing at Nellangarai and the petitioner/wife is residing at Perambur and therefore, prays for allowing this transfer civil miscellaneous petition in the interest of justice. 4. Furthermore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife draws the attention of this Court to the deposition of respondent/husband tendered in Crl.M.P.No.102 of 2007 before VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai wherein the respondent/husband has categorically stated in his chief examination that he is residing at No. 34/10, Suryagardan, Pandian Salai, Neelangarai. 5. Whenever a Court of law deals with a transfer application, the Court has to take note of the convenience of both parties. However, the convenience of the petitioner/wife is primordial one and the same normally stands in a better footing and ultimately justice is to be meted out to the parties. 6. 5. Whenever a Court of law deals with a transfer application, the Court has to take note of the convenience of both parties. However, the convenience of the petitioner/wife is primordial one and the same normally stands in a better footing and ultimately justice is to be meted out to the parties. 6. As far as the present case is concerned, in view of the subsequent fact and development that the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband are residing at Perambur and Neelangarai at Chennai respectively, this Court in the interest of justice allows this transfer civil miscellaneous petition and directs the withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2007 from the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore to the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai and the Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore is directed to transfer the said H.M.O.P. No 31 of 2007 from its file to the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving the case bundle in H.M.O.P.No.31 of 2007, the Principal Family Court, Chennai is directed to proceed further in accordance with law, after providing due opportunity to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.