R.Susila v. T.M.Ramasamy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.11.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN Transfer CMP No.91 of 2015 and MP.No.1 of 2015 R.Susila

...Petitioner

versus T.M.Ramasamy

...Respondent

PRAYER: Tr.C.M.P. filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.130 of 2013 pending on the file of Sub-Court, Ariyalur and transfer the same to the II Additional Family Court, Chennai and try along with O.P.No.4879 of 2014.

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Arulmozhi For Respondent : No appearance

O R D E R

The respondent initiated proceedings in HMOP No.130 of 2013 before the Sub-Court at Ariyalur, praying for a decree of divorce. The petitioner, thereafter, filed O.P.No.4879 of 2014 before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai, invoking Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner has come up with this petition for transfer.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondent.

3. The proceedings initiated by the respondent for divorce is pending before the Sub-Court at Ariyalur. The connected proceedings initiated by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights, is pending in O.P.No.4879 of 2014 before the II Additional Family Court, Chennai.

4. The petitioner is a resident of West Mambalam, Chennai. According to the petitioner, she has to take care of her unmarried daughters and as such, it would not be possible for her to travel all along from Chennai to Ariyalur for the purpose of defending the proceedings in HMOP No.130 of 2013. There is nothing on record to suspect the bonafides in filing this transfer petition.

5. The factual matrix indicates that there are two matrimonial proceedings between the parties. In case, these two proceedings involving a common question are allowed to be prosecuted in two different courts, there is a possibility of passing contradictory orders in

the very same subject matter.

6. Section 19(iii-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, permits the wife to initiate matrimonial proceedings before the Court in whose jurisdiction she is residing at the time of institution of proceedings.

7. The petitioner has produced sufficient materials justifying her request for transfer. I am therefore of the view that the transfer petition deserves to be allowed.

8. The proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.130 of 2013 is withdrawn from the file of Sub-Court, Ariyalur and is transferred to the file of II Additional Family Court, Chennai, for disposal along with O.P.No.4879 of 2014.

9. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

22.11.2016 Index:Yes/No svki

K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.

(svki) To 1.The Sub-Court, Ariyalur 2.The II Additional Family Court, Chennai Transfer CMP No.91 of 2015 22.11.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in