IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 20.4.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Tr.C.M.P. Nos.422, 423 and 424 of 2009 D.Anitha .. first petitioner in Tr.C.M.P No.422 of 2009, petitioner in Tr.C.M.P No.423 of 2009 and petitioner in Tr.C.M.P. No.424 of 2009 Minor Rakshira @ Prathika rep. By N.F.D.Anitha ... second petitioners in Tr.C.M.P No.422 of 2009 vs. S.Deepak ... Respondent in all the Tr.C.M.Ps.
Tr.C.M.P.No.422 of 2009:
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed to withdraw the M.C.No.35 of 2007, for maintenance on the file of the Family Court, Salem and to transfer the same to any Family Court at Chennai.
Tr.C.M.P.No.423 of 2009:
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed to withdraw the G.O.P.No.1 of 2008, on the file of the Family Court, Salem and to transfer the same to any Family Court at Chennai.
Tr.C.M.P.No.424 of 2009:
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed to withdraw the F.C.O.P.No.131 of 2007, on the file of the Family Court, Salem and to transfer the same to any Family Court at Chennai.
For petitioners: Mr.M.Palanivel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Deepak
(party-in-person)
C O M M O N O R D E R
Tr.C.M.P.No.422 of 2009:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed before this Court praying that this Court may be pleased to withdraw the Maintenance Case filed by the petitioner, in M.C.No.35 of 2007, pending on the file of the Family Court, Salem and to transfer the same to the Family Court, at Chennai.
Tr.C.M.P.No.423 of 2009:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed before this Court praying that this Court may be pleased to withdraw G.O.P.No.1 of 2008, on the file of the Family Court, Salem and to transfer the same to Family Court, at Chennai.
Tr.C.M.P.No.424 of 2009:
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed before this Court praying that this Court may be pleased to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.131 of 2007, on the file of the Family Court, Salem and to transfer the same to the Family Court, at Chennai.
2. The second petitioner in Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.422 of 2009, is the minor daughter of the first petitioner. The first petitioner has stated that her marriage with the respondent was solemnised, on 12.12.1994, at Salem, according to the Hindu rites and customs. Right from the inception of the marriage, the respondent has been behaving abnormally. Both the respondent and his mother have been harassing the petitioner by treating her cruelly.
3. It has also been stated that the respondent is not fit for matrimonial life, as he is an impotent man. Even though the petitioner is healthy and fertile, she could not bear a child through the respondent. Therefore, she had adopted a three month old female baby from an orphanage, on 13.6.2006, based on an order passed by the City Civil Court, at Chennai, in Adoption Petition No.700 of 2005.
4. It has also been stated that the respondent and his mother were often demanding jewels and money from the petitioner’s parents. Even then the petitioner was being treated like a slave in the house of the respondent. The respondent did not give any money to the petitioner for her family expenses and for the maintenance and education of the adopted child. While so, the petitioner’s mother had died, on 11.1.2007. Due to the ill-treatment meted out to the petitioner, by the respondent, she had lodged a criminal complaint, on 27.3.2007, before the women police station, Suramangalam, Salem. Due to the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the respondent had threatened to kill the petitioner and the minor child.
5. It has been further stated that the respondent is earning nearly rupees 2 lakhs per month and he is also owning valuable immovable properties worth several crores. On the other hand, the petitioner is without any job. As such, she finds it difficult to live a normal life. In such circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file M.C.No.35 of 2007, on the file of the Family Court, at Salem, on 11.5.2007. However, due to the hardship faced by the petitioner in leading a normal life, she had decided to shift her residence, along with her father, to Velacherry in Chennai. After she had shifted to Vellachery, Chennai, she finds it extremely difficult to travel to Salem, along with her minor girl child, to attend the hearings before the Family Court, Salem, in M.C.No.35 of 2007.
6. It has also been stated that the respondent is permanently residing at Chennai taking care of his business interests. In such circumstances, she had filed the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition before this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the transfer of M.C.No.35 of 2007, to any one of the family Courts, at Chennai.
7. The petitioner had also filed a Transfer Miscellaneous Petition in Tr.C.M.P.No.423 of 2009, praying that this Court may be pleased to withdraw G.O.P.No.1 of 2008, pending on the file of the Family Court, Salem, and to transfer the same to any one of the Family Courts, at Chennai. The respondent had filed the guardian original petition, in G.O.P.No.1 of 2008, on the file of the Family Court, Salem, praying for a direction to the petitioner to give permanent custody of the minor child Prathika D. Gupta, to the respondent.
8. The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.424 of 2009, had been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.131 of 2007, pending on the file of the Family Court, Salem, and to transfer the same to the Family Court, at Chennai. The petition in F.C.O.P.No.131 of 2007, had been filed by the respondent, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying for dissolution of the marriage that had taken place between the petitioner and the respondent, on 12.12.1994, at Salem.
9. Counter affidavits had been filed by the respondent in the above Transfer Miscellaneous Petitions denying the averments and allegations made by the petitioner in her affidavits filed in support of the transfer miscellaneous petitions. The respondent had stated that it is the petitioner, who was treating the respondent and his family members, cruelly and that she had also deserted the respondent.
10. It has been further stated that the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent is an impotent person is totally false. Such an allegation has been made only with the mala fide intention of bringing disrepute to the respondent and his family members. The petitioner has made the allegations against the respondent and his family members only with mala fide intention of bringing disrepute to the respondent and his family. The petitioner had also lodged a false criminal complaint before the women police station, Salem and before the Tamil Nadu State Women Commission.
11. It has also been stated that the criminal action against the respondent had been dropped, as it had been found, on investigation, that the allegations made by the petitioner are false and frivolous in nature. Further, the petitioner has also been avoiding to bring the child to the Court, when the matter relating to the custody of the child, is being heard, in spite of the several directions issued by the concerned Court. Further, there is no urgency to transfer the cases pending on the file of the family Court, Salem, to the Family Court, at Chennai, as prayed for by the petitioner. Further, the matters are at the final stage of the trial and therefore, it may not be appropriate for this Court to transfer the petitions pending on the file of the family Court, Salem, to the Family Court, at Chennai.
12. The respondent had placed the following decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his contentions that the Transfer Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the petitioner should be rejected.
(i) DALIPSINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS., dated 3.12.2009. (ii) SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR.R.KARUPPAN, ADVOCATE (AIR 2001 SC 2204) (iii) GEETA SAHU Vs. RAVINDER PRASAD SAHU, dated 7.2.2008. (iv) STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Vs. THE COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RESPONDENTS RIGHTS, WEST BENGAL & ORS., dated 17.2.2010. However, this Court does not find the decisions cited by the respondent to be directly relevant to decide the issue involved in the present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petitions.
13. It is not in dispute that both the petitioner and the respondent are, at present, living at Chennai. In view of the difficulties expressed by the petitioner, in her affidavits filed in support of her petitions, in attending the hearings before the family Court, at Salem, in the matters pending before it and as it has been stated that the petitioner has no independent income and that she is living with her aged father, at Chennai, along with her minor female child, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petitions, by withdrawing M.C.No.35 of 2007, G.O.P.No.1 of 2008 and F.C.O.P.No.131 of 2007, pending on the file of the Family Court, Salem and transferring the same to the Principal Family Court, at Chennai. After transferring and renumbering, the Principal Family Court, Chennai, is directed to hear and dispose of the cases, on merits and in accordance with law, within six months thereafter. The Transfer Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1,1 and 1 of 2009 are closed.
lan
To
1. The Family Court, Salem
2. The Family Court at
Chennai