BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06/08/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN TR.C.M.P(MD).No.55 of 2009 S.Deviannai .. Petitioner Vs. R.M.Subbu .. Respondent PRAYER This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. to transfer the H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2009, pending on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukottai to any of the competent courts in Trichy. !For Petitioner ... M/s.Palaramasamy ^For Respondent ... Mr.A.N.Ramanathan :ORDER
The petitioner/wife filed this petition to transfer the H.M.O.P.No.40 of
2009, which was filed by the respondent/husband on the file of Sub court,
Pudukkottai, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. It is
seen from the affidavit filed by the petitioner that the marriage was solemnized
on 06.06.2008 and H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2009, was filed on 18.02.2009 within a short
span of 7 months. Though, certain allegations are made in H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2009,
this court is not inclined to go into the details as only the transfer petition
is filed before this court. It is curious to note that the petitioner and the
respondent are residing in Trichy and they led their matrimonial life also in
Trichy. However, the respondent/husband chose to file the petition before the
Sub Court, Pudukkottai.
2.Though, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband contended that
the marriage was celebrated at Pudukkottai and that was the cause of action
which made him to file the said petition before the Sub Court, Pudukkottai.
However, this contention is not convincing especially when the petitioner and
respondent were living together before separation in Trichy and after separation
also are living in Trichy. Hence, the petitioner filed before Pudukkottai Court
is clearly an abuse of process of court by the respondent/husband to harass the
petitioner/wife to make her to go to Pudukkottai to appear before the Sub Court
Pudukkottai.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that taking
into consideration of the fact that the petitioner as well as the respondent are
living in Trichy, it is unnecessary to travel to Pudukkottai to appear before
the Sub Court, Pudukkottai. The petitioner/wife being a lady, she also expressed
her inability to travel long distance to Pudukkottai.
4.For the reasons already recorded by this court, H.M.O.P.No.40 of 2009,
has to be transferred to Sub
Court, Trichy. For having abused the process of law, the respondent has to be
burdened with some amount as cost, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) in cash to the petitioner/wife. The said
amount has to be paid to the wife before the Sub Court, Trichy in the first
hearing and the learned Sub Judge is directed to verify whether the cost was
paid by the husband. Only after filing of proof for the said payment by the
husband the Sub Court, Trichy is directed to proceed with the matter further.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed. No costs.
ns