Madras High Court
Sornalatha vs Unknown on 23 September, 2022
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.468 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.468 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD).No.7650 of 2022
Sornalatha ... Petitioner
v.
R.S.Muthuraman ... Respondent
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C
to withdraw the case in HMOP.No.108 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court,
Thirumangalam and transfer the same to the Sub Court, Devakottai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
For Respondent : No appearance
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.468 of 2022
ORDER
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking
transfer of the case in HMOP.No.108 of 2021 from the file of the Sub Court,
Thirumangalam to the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai.
2. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. The
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on
11.11.2016. Due to some misunderstanding, now, they are living separately
and the petitioner has filed MC.No.1 of 2021 before the Judicial Magistrate
Court, Karaikudi, seeking maintenance. Thereafter, the respondent has filed
HMOP.No.108 of 2021 before the Sub Court, Thirumangalam, seeking
divorce. The petitioner is residing at Karaikudi in her parental house. Since
the petitioner is not having sufficient means to travel and meet out her day-to-
day expenses, she finds it difficult to travel from Karaikudi to Tirumangalam.
Therefore, she filed the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition to
transfer the case in HMOP.No.108 of 2021 from the file of the Sub Court,
Thirumangalam, to the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.468 of 2022
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
respondent is not even providing any maintenance to the petitioner. He
further submits that the petitioner is not having sufficient means to travel and
meet out her day-to-day expenses and there is no one to accompany her.
Therefore, she finds it difficult to travel and appear before the Sub Court,
Thirumangalam, for each and every hearing.
4. There is no representation for the respondent.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amitha Shah vs- Virendar
Lal Shah, reported in (2003)10 SCC 609 has held that the convenience of
the wife and more so of the child must be taken into account while deciding
the petition for transfer. In the case of Rajani Kishor Paradeshi Vs Kishor
Babulal Paradeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that in such type of transfer petitions, the convenience of the wife is
to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.468 of 2022
6. This Court being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit
filed in support of this petition and also taking into account that the
convenience of wife is to be taken into consideration at the time of
considering transfer petitions as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgments cited supra, is inclined to allow the present petition.
7. In the light of the above, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition
stands allowed. The proceedings in HMOP.No.108 of 2021 pending on the
file of the Sub Court, Thirumangalam, is withdrawn and ordered to be
transferred to the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai. The learned Judge, Sub
Court, Thirumangalam, is directed to transmit the entire case records to the
Sub Court, Devakottai, forthwith. The learned Judge, Sub Court, Devakottai,
shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No 23.09.2022
Internet: Yes / No
gk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.468 of 2022
To
1. The Sub Court,
Devakottai.
2. The Sub Court,
Thirumangalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.468 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.468 of 2022
23.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
