Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1927 (MAD)

B. Shritha v. R. Jeyakanthan

2010-04-22

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, praying, that this Court may be pleased to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.2268 of 2008, from the file of the learned Principal Family Court Judge, Chennai and to transfer the same to the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, to be tried, along with H.M.O.P.No.23 of 2009. 2. It has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized, on 11.07.2007, as per the Hindu rites and Customs, at Chennai. Thereafter, the petitioner and the respondent were living in their matrimonial home, at Chennai, along with the respondent, and his mother and brother. However, due to certain disputes that had arisen between the petitioner and the respondent, he had filed the petition, in F.C.O.P.No.2268 of 2008, before the Principal Family Court, Chennai, for divorce, on the ground of cruelty. Whileso, the petitioner had shifted her residence to Pollachi, since, the respondent had gone to London for his employment. Whileso, the petitioner had filed H.M.O.P.No.23 of 2009, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner has stated that it is difficult for her to travel, from Pollachi to Chennai, to attend the hearings, in F.C.O.P.No.2268 of 2008, before the Principal Family Court, Chennai. She had also stated that she has no one to accompany her during her visits to Chennai and that she is living with her aged parents, at Pollachi. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition before this Court,under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the averments and the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. The respondent had stated that it is the petitioner, who treated the respondent, cruelly and she had filed number of Criminal complaints against the respondent. The respondent had met with a road accident, at the U.S.A. and he had undergone a surgery and he would not be in a position to travel to Pollachi. The respondents mother had also undergone four surgeries in her abdomen. In such circumstances, it would not be possible for the respondent, to attend the hearings before the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, in H.M.O.P.No.23 of 2009,filed by the petitioner. 4. The respondents mother had also undergone four surgeries in her abdomen. In such circumstances, it would not be possible for the respondent, to attend the hearings before the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, in H.M.O.P.No.23 of 2009,filed by the petitioner. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the respondent has no objection to transfer F.C.O.P.No.2268 of 2008, pending, on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, to the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, to be tried, along with H.M.O.P.No.23 of 2009. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that this Court may be pleased to direct the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, to dispose of F.C.O.P.No.2268 of 2008 and H.M.O.P.No.23 of 2009, within a specified period. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well the respondent, F.C.O.P.No.2268 of 2008, pending on the file of the Principal Family court, Chennai, is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.23 of 2009. 6. Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, after F.C.O.P.No.2268 of 2008, is transferred and renumbered, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pollachi, the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi, shall hear and dispose of the petition, along with in H.M.O.P.No.23 of 2009, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.