Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2160 (MAD)

K. Anitha v. R. Aathimoolam

2010-05-03

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- This transfer civil miscellaneous petition has been filed to withdraw O.P.No.60 of 2009, from the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, and to transfer the same to the family Court, Chengalpet. 2. It has been stated that the respondent had filed H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2009, before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, praying for divorce. It has been stated that the petitioner has been living at Madipakkam, Chennai, from the month of August, 2009. She has given birth to a child, on 8.6.2009. 3. It has also been stated that the petitioners parents are living in Chennai. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had taken place at Chennai and they have been living in Chennai, immediately, after the marriage. 4. It has also been stated that it would be extremely difficult for the petitioner to travel to Coimbatore, to attend the hearings before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, in H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2009, especially, with the nine months old child. In such circumstances, the petitioner has prayed that this Court may be pleased to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2009, from the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, and to transfer the same to the family Court, Chengalpet. 5. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had also placed before this Court, a decision of the Supreme Court in REENA BAHRI Vs. AJAY BAHRI (2002) 10 SCC 136 ), wherein, it has been stated that when the wife is having a small child and when she does not have anyone, who can conveniently accompany her, her request for transfer is to be allowed. 7. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner and in view of the decision cited before this Court, H.M.O.P.No.60 of 2009, on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, is withdrawn and transferred to the family Court at Chengalpet, as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, Tr.C.M.P.No.484 of 2009 stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.