Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2531 (MAD)

S. Nandhini v. V. Raghuraman

2018-08-14

T.RAVINDRAN

body2018
ORDER : 1. The petitioner is the wife. 2. The respondent is the husband. 3. As seen from the averments contained in the affidavit, the marital life between the parties is not cordial. 4. It is found that the respondent has levied the divorce proceeding against the petitioner in HMOP No.812 of 2017 and the same is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Tambaram. According to the petitioner, she has filed a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty and impotency in HMOP No.354 of 2017 against the respondent and the same is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Ponneri. Putting forth the case that inasmuch as the petitioner is a resident of Puzhal, Chennai and she would be unable to attend the divorce proceeding at Sub Court, Tambaram alone and her attendance at the hearing dates of the divorce proceeding at Tambaram Court would cause loss to her, accordingly, the petitioner has come forward with the petition seeking transfer of the divorce proceeding laid by the respondent and pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Tambaram to the file of the Sub-Court, Ponneri for being tried along with the divorce proceeding laid by her in HMOP No.354 of 2017. 5. The parties had levied independent and separate divorce proceeding against each other and the same are pending in different forums. It is found that considering the issues involved between the parties in the above said divorce proceedings being one and the same, in my considered opinion, in the interest of justice, the common adjudication of the divorce proceedings should be done by the same Court. Accordingly, it is found that the proceedings laid by the parties should be heard and determined by the same Court. 6. The petitioner's counsel seeks the joint trial of the two proceedings at the Sub-Court, Ponneri on the footing that the petitioner being a lady, she would be put to loss and hardship, if she were to be directed to attend the Sub-Court, Tambaram and accordingly, stated that the interest of justice would serve if both the proceedings are tried at Sub-Court, Ponneri. 7. 7. Per contra, it is the contention of the respondent's counsel that only after the respondent had laid the divorce proceeding against the petitioner in the Sub-Court, Tambaram, as a counter blast, the petitioner has laid the divorce proceeding against him in the Sub-Court, Ponneri and in such view of the matter, according to him, in the light of the provisions contained in Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, if the petitions of the above nature are presented to different District Courts by the parties concerned, the petition presented later shall be transferred to the District Court, in which, the earlier petition was presented and accordingly, both the petitions should be heard and disposed of together by the District Court, in which, the earlier petition was presented and accordingly, sought for the transfer of the divorce proceeding initiated by the petitioner to the file of the Sub-Court, Tambaram. 8. The transfer petition has been laid by the petitioner only on the ground of her inconvenience in attending the hearing dates at Tambaram Court. Other than that, she has not given any further reason for effecting the transfer. Considering the place of the residence of the petitioner and the Court at Tambaram, it is found that the distance between the two is not on the higher side. Furthermore, when it is found that the petitioner's presence may not be required on all the hearings dates of the proceeding and at the most, the petitioner's presence would be required only at the time when her evidence is to be recorded in support of her case and on the other hearing dates, the petitioner being represented by an able advocate, he could very well manage the show as per the instructions received from the petitioner. In such view of the matter, it is found that the ground of inconvenience projected by the petitioner for effecting the transfer to transfer the proceeding pending on the file of the Tambaram Court to the Ponneri Court as such cannot be acceded to. 9. In such view of the matter, it is found that the ground of inconvenience projected by the petitioner for effecting the transfer to transfer the proceeding pending on the file of the Tambaram Court to the Ponneri Court as such cannot be acceded to. 9. As rightly put forth by the respondent's Counsel, considering the mandatory provisions under Section 21-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, when it is found that the parties had laid the divorce proceedings against each other and when further, it is seen that the divorce proceeding laid by the petitioner had been preferred subsequent to the divorce petition laid by the respondent, in view of the mandate of the above said Section, in my considered view, the HMOP laid by the petitioner should be transferred to the Sub-Court, Tambaram for joint trial along with the divorce proceeding laid by the respondent in HMOP No.812 of 2017. The above said mode of transfer done would serve the cause of justice and also would be in accordance with law. 10. For the reasons afore stated, the HMOP No.354 of 2017 is ordered to be withdrawn from the file of the Sub-Court, Ponneri and transferred to the Sub-Court, Tambaram for being jointly tried along with the HMOP No.812 of 2017. Accordingly, the transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.