Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2553 (MAD)

N. Lakshmi v. D. Chandrasekaran

2018-08-20

T.RAVINDRAN

body2018
ORDER : 1. Seeking transfer of HMOP No.196 of 2015 from the file of the District Judge, Family Court, Chengalpet to the Family Court, Trichirappali, the petition has been laid by the petitioner. 2. The marital life between the petitioner and the respondent, who are the wife and the husband, is not cordial. 3. Accordingly, it is found that the respondent has filed HMOP No.125 of 2013 against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and the same had been subsequently transferred to the Family Court, Chengalpet and re-numbered as HMOP No.83 of 2018. 4. It is further seen that the petitioner had initiated HMOP No.196 of 2015 against the respondent for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and the same is pending before the Family Court, Chengalpet and it is further seen that G.W.O.P.No.1 of 2015 is also pending between the parties on the file of the Family Court, Chengalpet. 5. Putting forth the case that the petitioner's parents are residing at Trichirapalli and thereby, they would be in a position to engage a good counsel to defend the proceedings on her behalf and also considering the distance between Trichirapalli and Chengalpet, the present petition has been laid by the petitioner seeking transfer of HMOP No.196 of 2015 laid by her against the respondent from the Family Court, Chengalpet to the Family Court, Trichirappalli. 6. As seen from the averments contained in the affidavit, already two other petitions are pending between the parties on the file of the Family Court, Chengalpet. The only reason given by the petitioner for transferring her HMOP is that her parents would be in a position to engage a good counsel at Trichirappalli for conducting her case. Admittedly, the petitioner is employed at United States of America and her minor children are also residing with her. In such view of the matter, considering the nature of the proceedings between the parties, it is found that the petitioner's presence would not be required on all the hearing dates of the matrimonial proceedings. Admittedly, the petitioner is employed at United States of America and her minor children are also residing with her. In such view of the matter, considering the nature of the proceedings between the parties, it is found that the petitioner's presence would not be required on all the hearing dates of the matrimonial proceedings. The petitioner's case could be managed by her counsel as per the instructions received from the petitioner and in such view of the matter, when the petitioner's presence would be required only at the time of recording her evidence in the proceedings and in respect of the other hearings, the petitioner could very well conduct the proceedings through her counsel by giving him suitable instructions and when it is seen that admittedly the petitioner is employed in the United States of America and her children are also residing with her, in such view of the matter, the request for transfer being made only for enabling her parents to engage a good counsel at Trichirappalli when the good counsel could be arranged at Chengalpet for the conduct the proceedings pending before the Family Court, Chengalpet, it is seen that the above cause projected for transfer as such cannot be accepted. 7. The petitioner had already engaged an able counsel on her behalf for conducting the proceedings laid by her as well as defending the proceeding laid by the respondent against her. In such view of the matter, when the Counsel, who had been engaged by her could conduct the proceedings after getting suitable instructions from her or her parents at the Family Court, Chengalpet itself and the petitioner's presence would be required only at the time when her evidence is to be recorded, in such view of the matter, in my considered opinion, there is no need for effecting the transfer sought for and the proceedings being continued at the Family Court, Chengalpet, it is found, that no prejudice or inconvenience as such would be caused to the petitioner. 8. In the light of the foregoing reasons, the request for transfer is found to be not justifiable and also unacceptable. Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected CMP.No.13972 of 2018 is closed.