Madras High Court
Priyanka vs Anandhaselvam on 8 September, 2021
Tr CMP (MD) No. 322 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :08.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Tr.C.M.P.(MD) No.322 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6845 of 2021
Priyanka ... Petitioner
-vs-
Anandhaselvam ... Respondent
PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, to withdraw the case in HMOP No. 87 of 2021 on the
file of the Family Court, Thoothukudi and to transfer the same to the file of the
Sub Court, Ambasamuthiram for trial along with HMOP No.77 of 2021.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondent : Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr CMP (MD) No. 322 of 2021
ORDER
The present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed to withdraw the
case in HMOP No. 87 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Thoothukudi and
to transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court, Ambasamuthiram for trial along
with HMOP No.77 of 2021.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 30.03.2020. After
marriage the petitioner was residing with the respondent along with her parents-
in-law at Thoothukudi. The respondent had changed his attitude after few months
and the respondent and his family members started demanding more dowry and
when the petitioner's parents expressed their inability the respondent started
harassing and torturing her. Unable to bear the torture the petitioner left the
matrimonial home and she is presently living at Alwarkurichi, Tenkasi District
with her parents. The petitioner has filed application for divorce before the Sub
Court, Ambasamutram in HMOP No.77 of 2021 and as a retaliation the
respondent has filed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr CMP (MD) No. 322 of 2021
Family Court, Thoothukudi in HMOP No.87 of 2021. The learned counsel would
further submit that when the petitioner was at Thoothukudi she had been
subjected to harassment and the real intention of the respondent is not to take
back the petitioner and the case has been filed before the Family Court only to
harass the petitioner. It is just and necessary that both the cases have to be heard
together in order to avoid conflicting judgments . The divorce petition filed by the
petitioner is only before the Sub Court and the presence of the respondent is
not necessary in all hearings, whereas the petitioner has to appear before the
Family Court on all hearing dates. Further Thoothukudi is about 120kms away
from Alwarkurichi and the petitioner finds it very difficult to travel a six hours a
day to attend hearing.
3. The learned counsel would further submit that in similar circumstances,
the Hon'ble Apex Court taking into consideration the convenience and the
comparative hardship faced by the petitioner/wife had directed to transfer the
cases to be tried in Courts near to the petitioner. Thereby, he seeks for transfer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr CMP (MD) No. 322 of 2021
4.The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed to transfer
the petition stating that the respondent has not harassed the petitioner for no
reason the petitioner has left the matrimonial home, thereby the respondent has
earlier filed HMOP No. 87 of 2021 before the Family Court, Thoothukudi and
only after that the petitioner has filed a petition for divorce before the sub Court,
Ambasamudram. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the
respondent apprehends life threat if he goes to Ambasamudram.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the apprehension of the respondent in unfounded and that in the event of any
apprehension, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate action.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap.vs.
Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap reported in (2016)14 SCC 356 has held that while
deciding the transfer of matrimonial proceedings comparative hardship faced
by the wife has to be taken into account. Further in the case of Amitha Shah vs-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr CMP (MD) No. 322 of 2021
Virendar Lal Shah, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003)10 SCC 609
has held that the convenience of the wife must be taken into account while
deciding the petition for transfer.
7. It is also further seen that since two cases are pending, this Court is of
the opinion that present petition has to be allowed to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings and conflicting views.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering
the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either sides, HMOP No.
87 of 2021 is withdrawn from the file of Family Court, Thoothukudi and
transferred to the file of Sub Court, Ambasamudram , for disposal as per law. The
Family Court, Thoothukudi is directed to transmit the papers to the file of the
Sub Court, Ambasamudram forthwith. The Sub Court, Ambasamudram, is
directed to try the transferred HMOP No.87 of 2021 along with HMOP No. 77 of
2021 on merits and in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr CMP (MD) No. 322 of 2021
9.In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
08.09.2021
Internet: Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
aav
To:
1.The Sub Court, Ambasamudram
2.The Family Court, Thoothukudi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tr CMP (MD) No. 322 of 2021
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
aav
Tr.C.M.P.(MD) No.322 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.6845 of 2021
08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
