Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 492 (MAD)

S. Janaki Banu v. J. Sivakumar

2015-01-29

D.HARIPARANTHAMAN

body2015
JUDGMENT D. HARIPARANTHAMAN, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The respondent has filed H.M.O.P. No. 12 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Madurai for divorce. The case is pending for the past seven years. The entire matrimonial life is in turmoil. The facts relating to the turmoil are not necessary to dispose of this case. 2. It is stated that the respondent husband has filed C.R.P. (MD) No. 1019 of 2014, seeking for speedy disposal of H.M.O.P. No. 12 of 2007. This Court allowed the petition on 30.04.2014 without hearing the petitioner herein and directed the Trial Court to complete the H.M.O.P. proceedings on or before July 2014. 3. The petitioner herein filed a review application in Rev.Applc.No.111 of 2014 to review the order dated 30.04.2014. After hearing both sides, this Court passed an ultimate order, directing the Trial Court to dispose of H.M.O.P. No. 12 of 2007 before 31.01.2015. 4. It is stated that the respondent examined three witnesses including himself and the witnesses were cross-examined by the petitioner wife. 5. The petitioner herein was also examined in chief and she has to be cross-examined by the respondent husband. At this juncture, the petitioner herein filed application in I.A. No. 558 of 2014 under Section 10 of C.P.C. to stay the further proceedings making certain grounds. Ultimately, the Trial Court rejected I.A. No. 558 of 2014. It is also stated that a Civil Revision Petition is also filed against the said order. 6. The petitioner has come with this application for transfer of H.M.O.P. No. 12 of 2007 from the file of the Family Court, Madurai, to the file of any other Court on two grounds. The first ground is the pendency of I.A. No. 558 of 2014 in H.M.O.P. No. 12 of 2007. Now, it is admitted that I.A. No. 558 of 2014 is not pending and the same was disposed of. As stated above that I.A. No. 558 of 2014 was dismissed by the Trial Court and thus, the first ground is not available to the petitioner. 7. The second ground is that the maintenance as ordered in I.A. No. 395 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No. 12 of 2007 on 04.07.2013 is not paid by the respondent husband. As stated above that I.A. No. 558 of 2014 was dismissed by the Trial Court and thus, the first ground is not available to the petitioner. 7. The second ground is that the maintenance as ordered in I.A. No. 395 of 2010 in H.M.O.P. No. 12 of 2007 on 04.07.2013 is not paid by the respondent husband. While the learned counsel for the petitioner states that some maintenance amount is due, the learned counsel for the respondent husband filed an affidavit that there is no due and he has so far paid Rs. 97,500/- towards maintenance including the litigation expenses. 8. It is admitted by both sides that the Trial Court ordered Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance from January 2012. The Trial Court also ordered Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses. 9. According to the respondent husband, Rs. 97,500/- was paid. According to the petitioner wife, Rs. 87,500/- is paid. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that without prejudice to the affidavit of the petitioner, he is willing to pay Rs. 10,000/-, which is disputed by the wife and he is also willing to deposit another Rs. 10,000/- to the credit of H.M.O.P. No. 12 of 2007 before the Family Court, Madurai towards future maintenance. The said amounts shall be paid/deposited within a period of two weeks. 10. The Trial Court is directed to verify as to the actual amount paid by the respondent husband to the petitioner wife towards maintenance and litigation expenses and thereafter, to record a finding as to any amount due and payable by the husband. However, I am of the view that no case is made out for transfer of the case. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued legal bias against the Presiding Officer. I am not able to appreciate such argument. Just because the Trial Court rejected I.A. No. 558 of 2014, motive cannot be attributed to the Presiding Officer. Furthermore, the matter is at the advanced stage and the petitioner wife stands in the witness box for cross-examination by the respondent husband. However, the time granted for completion by this Court expires on 31.01.2015. In these circumstances, I hereby extended the time by two more months. The matter shall be completed before 31.03.2015. 12. With the above observations and directions, this petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.