BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21/04/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Tr.C.M.P.(MD) No.48 of 2008 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 A.Jayapriya .. Petitioner Vs. R.Parthiban .. Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2007 from the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur, and transfer the same to the file of Subordinate Judge, Trichy. !For Petitioner ... Mr.G.Ethirajulu ^For Respondent ... No appearance :JUDGMENT
This petition is focussed to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2007 from the
file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur, and transfer it to the file of Subordinate
Judge, Trichy.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of
notice on the respondent through his counsel and printing the name of the
respondent, no one has appeared.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition would run thus:
H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2007 was filed by the respondent/husband as against the
petitioner in Sub Court, Karur, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and it is
pending. Whereas M.C.No.118 of 2007 filed by the petitioner/wife under Section
125 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance is pending in Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court, Trichy. The grievance of the petitioner/wife is that
she being a lady having a 10 month’s old minor child to be looked after cannot
travel all along from Trichy to Karur so as to attend the matrimonial
proceedings in H.M.O.P.68 of 2007 pending in the said Sub Court, Trichy.
Accordingly, she prays for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2007 from the file of
the Sub Court, Karur, to Sub Court, Trichy.
4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any justification
on the part of the wife in seeking transfer of the H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2007 from
the file of the Sub Court, Karur, to Sub Court, Trichy?
5. Point: Perused records. For the reasons set out supra, I am of the
considered opinion that there is sufficient force in the contention of the
petitioner as she being a lady having the responsibility to look after her 10
month’s old minor child, she could not find sufficient time as well as
opportunity to go every time to Karur from Trichy and that too after spending
considerable amount. She may also require somebody’s assistance to cover the
distance. Hence, it is just and necessary to transfer H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2007
to Sub Court, Trichy.
6. However, by way of protecting the interest of the husband also, I would
like to observe that the Sub Court, Trichy, need not insist for the appearance
of the husband on all hearings, except on such days his presence is required by
the Sub Court.
7. In the result, H.M.O.P.No.68 of 2007 pending on the file of the Sub
Court, Karur, is withdrawn and transferred to the Sub Court, Trichy, to be dealt
with as per law. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 is closed. No
costs.
sj
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Karur.
2.The Subordinate Judge,
Trichy.