Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2637 (MAD)

R. N. Chokkalingam v. Anitha A. S.

2018-08-27

T.RAVINDRAN

body2018
ORDER : The petitioner is the husband. The respondent is the wife. 2. All is not well in the marital life of the petitioner and the respondent. As seen from the materials placed on record, the petitioner has preferred divorce proceeding against the respondent in HMOP No.98 of 2017 and the same is pending on the file of the District Court, Chengalpattu. It is seen that the respondent thereafter has preferred HMOP No.27 of 2018 against the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and the same is pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruttani. 3. It is also seen that the respondent had been set exparte in HMOP No.98 of 2017 and thereafter, at her instance, the said exparte order was set aside and the respondent having filed counter, the matter stands adjourned for trial. 4. It is further seen that the respondent has levied a police complaint against the petitioner and others and in this connection, it is stated by the petitioner that he has filed a criminal original petition in the High Court seeking anticipatory bail, as the respondent by way of the abovesaid police complaint is harassing him one way or the other. 5. Seeking transfer of the HMOP pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruttani to the District Court, Chengalpat, the present petition has come to be laid and it is stated by the petitioner that inasmuch as common issues arise between the parties in respect of both the proceedings, according to him, in the interest of justice, both the proceedings should be clubbed together and tried by one and the same Court and by way of the same, conflict of decisions could be avoided. The above said ground projected for seeking transfer is found to be justified. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated by the parties concerned as above stated involve the marital issues between them. Accordingly, it is seen that common adjudication of the same by one and the same Court would be beneficial to both the parties as they would be required to adduce common evidence in respect of the same. If both the proceedings are tried by the same Court together, further, conflict of decisions could also be avoided. 6. Accordingly, it is seen that common adjudication of the same by one and the same Court would be beneficial to both the parties as they would be required to adduce common evidence in respect of the same. If both the proceedings are tried by the same Court together, further, conflict of decisions could also be avoided. 6. The petitioner has also putforth the case that the respondent is working at Tambaram, which is nearer to Chengalpattu and accordingly, it is stated case that by way of the proceedings above stated being tried at Chengalpattu Court, no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent. The employment status of the respondent at Tambaram is not controverted. It is thus found that no serious prejudice as such would be caused to the respondent, if both the proceedings are tried together at Chengalpattu Court. 7. Further, the respondent's proceeding is found to be of a later origin and it is seen that in the proceeding laid by the petitioner, the respondent has already filed a counter and the matter is ready for trial. 8. In view of the above factors, in the interest of justice, I am of the considered opinion that both the proceedings should be tried by one and the same Court and accordingly, HMOP No.27 of 2018 is withdrawn from the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruttani and transferred to the file of the District Court, Chengalpattu for trying along with HMOP No.98 of 2017 as per law. Accordingly, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition is allowed. Consequently, connected CMP No.11805 of 2018 is closed.