Mr.Rajarathinam, v. Mrs.Pandi Priya
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :01.11.2017 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN Tr.CMP.(MD).No.469 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD).No.9200 of 2017 Rajarathinam ... Petitioner/Petitioner vs.
Pandi Priya .. Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Court, Virudhunagar and transfer the same to Sub Court, Kovilpatti for further enquiry along with H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2013, pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Kovilpatti.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rajesh Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajmohan
ORDER
The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking to transfer H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2016, pending on the file of Sub-Court, Virudhunagar to Sub-Court, Kovilpatti, to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2013, pending therein.
2.The petitioner/husband states that he married the respondent on 06.06.2011 and the petitioner states that he has a female child from his first marriage and the same was informed to the respondent and then only, she gave consent for marriage. Out of wedlock, the respondent gave birth to a child during June 2012 and she was at her parent's house. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the illegal relationship of the respondent with an unknown person and hence, he filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2013, on the file of the Sub-Court, Kovilpatti and the same is pending. In the mean while, his wife/respondent herein filed H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2016, seeking restitution of conjugal rights on the file of the Sub-Court, Virudhunagar. The petitioner further states that unless both the H.M.O.Ps are tried together, there is a possibility of conflicting judgment being pronounced. Hence, he seeks to transfer H.M.O.P.NO.28 of 2016, from the file of the Subhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Court, Virudhunagar to be tried along H.M.O.P.No.157 of 2013, pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Kovilpatti. Hence, this petition.
3.The learned counsel for the respondent appeared and states that he has no serious objection. However, he wanted the litigation expenses to be paid to the respondent. 4.In such circumstances, considering the fact that if both the H.M.O.Ps are tried separately, there is a possibility of conflicting judgment being pronounced and also considering the serious objection raised by the respondent, this Court is of the view that it will be just and proper that both the H.M.O.Ps to be tried by one and the same court. Hence, this Court is inclined to entertain the petition. The point is answered accordingly. 5.In the result, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed as prayed for. Consequently, H.M.O.P.No.28 of 2016, pending on the file of the Sub-Court, Virudhunagar is ordered to be withdrawn and transferred to the Sub-Court, Kovilpatti. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The SubCourt, Kovilpatti is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of records from the Sub-court, Virudhunagar. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti.
2.The Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar.
+ 1 CC TO Mr.B.RAJESH SARAVANAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 84721 + 1 CC TO Mr.R.RAJAMOHAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No. 84774 VS TE/MR-KKR/SAR-II : 14/11/2017 : 2P/5C Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.469 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD).No.9200 of 2017 01.11.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/