Madras High Court
M.Ganesh Kumar vs Mahalakshmi on 13 June, 2022
Tr.C.M.P.No.314 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Tr.C.M.P. No.314 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.6340 of 2022
M.Ganesh Kumar ... Petitioner
..Vs..
Mahalakshmi ... Respondent
Prayer:- Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw and
transfer the divorce original petition in HMOP.No.1191 of 2021 on the
file of Principal Family Judge at Chennai to the file of Family Court,
Thoothukudi or any competent Court to try the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.I.Javid Akbar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Jaikumar
ORDER
This petition is filed to withdraw and transfer the divorce original
petition in HMOP.No.1191 of 2021 on the file of Principal Family Court
at Chennai to the file of Family Court, Thoothukudi or any competent
Court to try the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.314 of 2022
2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
3.The Petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The
marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on
14.09.2016. The respondent/ wife filed a Petition for divorce before the
Principal Family Court, Chennai in H.M.O.P.No.1191 of 2021. Now the
petitioner/ husband had filed this Transfer Petition to transfer the
HMOP.No.1191 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Family Court,
Chennai to Family Court, Thoothukudi.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is doing business in Tuticorin and he cannot make himself
present frequently for the proceedings pending at Chennai.
5. It is needless to state that in matrimonial proceedings,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.314 of 2022
preference should be given to the convenience of the wife. The said
position has been settled in various Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and more particularly in the Judgments reported in 2008 (9) SCC
353 [Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi and another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar
Gupta] and AIR 2002 SC 396 [Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and
another]. Infact as per the amended Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, the wife is guarded with the right to file
proceedings in the place where she resides. The above amendment was
brought with the object of facilitating the wife to participate in the
matrimonial proceedings without any hardship. In view of the above
reasons, I feel that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered
favourably, since the respondent is staying at Chennai.
6. The Petitioner is at liberty to seek leave of the Court to make his
appearance through his counsel, whenever he finds inconvenient to make
personal appearance, by giving advance notice to the Respondent.
Barring the same, I do not find any acceptable reasons for allowing this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.314 of 2022
petition.
7.Hence, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous
petition is closed.
13.06.2022
dsa
Index:yes/no
Internet: yes/no
Speaking order/ Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.314 of 2022
To
1.The Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
2.The Family Court Judge, Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tr.C.M.P.No.314 of 2022
R.N.MANJULA,J.
dsa
Tr.C.M.P. No.314 of 2022
13.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
