BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14/12/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Tr.C.M.P.No.121 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)NO.1 of 2007 1.Jaya 2.Minor Sindhya 3.Minor Vijaya Ganapathy, ... Petitioners (Minor petitioners 2 and 3 are rep.by Smt.Vidya, the first petitioner) Vs Sivaganesan ... Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2006 pending on the file of the Principal Sub- Court, Kumbakonam and transfer the same to the file of Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai. !For Petitioner ... Mr.B.Jameel Arasau ^For Respondent ... Mr.T.V.Sivakumar :JUDGMENT
This petition is focussed to to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2006
pending on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam and transfer the same
to the file of Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition would run thus:
The husband filed H.M.O.P.No.99 of 2006 before the Principal Sub-Court,
Kumbakonam for divorce. It is the contention of the wife that she is residing
with her parents within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Court Mayiladuthurai and
accordingly she finds it difficult to go over to Kumbakonam leaving behind her
two minor children in the custody of her parents and hence she prays for the
transfer of the HMOP No.99 of 2006 from Pincipal Sub-Court Kumbakonam to
Subordinate Court Mayiladuthurai. Whereas, on the husband’s side it is contended
that the matter is not pending before the Family Court but only before the
Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, where the wife is not expected to attend the
Court on all hearings and it would be sufficient for her to attend the Court
only during the trial and that the husband is also willing to bear the to and
fro expenses and her other incidental expenses on the dates of hearing, whenever
she appears before the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam.
4.Points for Consideration is as to whether the HMOP No.99 of 2006 pending
before the Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam has to be transferred to Subordinate
Court, Mayiladuthurai in view of the grounds set out by the wife?
5.Point: No doubt the convenience of the parties should be taken in to
consideration before ordering the transfer of a case. Here, the wife is having
two minor school going children with her, and if she wants to leave
Mayiladuthurai to Kumbakonam naturally she has to leave her children in the
custody of her parents and attend the Court which might be less than 50
kilometers from her residence. On the other hand the husband could travel from
Kumbakonam to Mayiladuthurai and comparatively it will not be causing much
hardship to him.
6.Hence, considering the comparative hardship, I am of the considered
opinion that the matter could be transferred to Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai from
Principal Sub-Court, Kumbakonam.
7.Concerning the jurisdiction of this Court, relating to transfer of the
case from Sub-Court, Kumbakonam, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Bench to the Principal Sub-Court, Mayiladuthurai, which is within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Seat, Madras now the law is well
settled that this Court can transfer such cases.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent would make an extempore
submission to the effect that time limit may be fixed for early disposal. I
could see, considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for
the respondent. The learned Sub-Judge, Mayiladuthurai, shall do well to see
that the matter is disposed of within period of three months from the date of
receipt of the records. On receipt of this order, the learned Principal Sub-
Judge, Kumbakonam shall transfer the records to the learned Subordinate Court,
Mayiladuthurai within a period of one week.
9. Accordingly, the HMOP is allowed. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of
2007 is closed. No costs.
sj/gsr
To
1.The Principal Sub-Court,
Kumbakonam.
2.The Subordinate Court,
Mayiladuthurai.