Thursday, July 18, 2013

MY LORD I cannot travel 20 KM WITHIN city & attend court. Transfer NEAR MY HOUSE! wife's plea rejected thankfully by HC. Brief facts : Matrimonial Case pending @ FAST TRACK court poonamalee a suburb of Chennai , must be since as the case is numbered as 144 or 2007. Wife living in Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai, another suburb of Chennai. distance between the two places is approx 20 km as per google maps !! http://goo.gl/maps/oD1oH . Wife alleges that she cannot travel approx 20 KM within city to an area serviced by metro busses and umpteen other means and attend divorce case !! she also claims that husband would harm her !! she want to transfer case to FAMILY court chennai and screw husband so that husband would be forced to attend every date.... Husband pleads that he has never and he will NEVER harm her et etc... Luckily HC does NOT allow transfer !!

MY LORD I cannot travel 20 KM WITHIN city & attend court. Transfer NEAR MY HOUSE! wife's plea rejected thankfully by HC. Brief facts : Matrimonial Case pending @ FAST TRACK court poonamalee a suburb of Chennai , must be since as the case is numbered as 144 or 2007. Wife living in Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai, another suburb of Chennai. distance between the two places is approx 20 km as per google maps !! http://goo.gl/maps/oD1oH . Wife alleges that she cannot travel approx 20 KM within city to an area serviced by metro busses and umpteen other means and attend divorce case !! she also claims that husband would harm her !! she want to transfer case to FAMILY court chennai and screw husband so that husband would be forced to attend every date.... Husband pleads that he has never and he will NEVER harm her et etc... Luckily HC does NOT allow transfer !!

******************************************************************

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS DOT NIC DOT IN SITE 

******************************************************************



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE:  21.4.2010

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

Tr.C.M.P.No.138 of 2009



Ms.P.Malathi ... Petitioner

vs. 

Mr.J.Thilagan ... Respondent

Civil Revision Petition filed to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2007 on the file of the I Fast Track Court, Poonamallee, and transfer the same to any one of the Family Courts at Chennai and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.


For petitioner : Ms.Suganya Devi Duraichamy

For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Ramesh

O R D E R
This Transfer Miscellaneous Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2007, pending on the file of the Fast Track Court I, Poonamallee, and to transfer the same to any one of the Family Courts, at Chennai. 

2. The petitioner has stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised, on 12.9.2004 at Trichy, as per the Hindu rites and customs. However, due to certain disputes that had arisen between the petitioner and the respondent, the  respondent had filed H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2007, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, which was later transferred to the Fast Track Court I, Poonamallee. The said petition had been filed by the respondent praying for divorce, on the ground of cruelty. 

3. The main reason for filing the transfer miscellaneous petition is that it would be difficult for the petitioner to attend the hearing before the Fast Track Court I, Poonamallee, as she is living in Santhome, Mylapore, Chennai. It has also been stated that the respondent is threatening the petitioner and therefore, there is a serious apprehension that he would harm the petitioner, when she goes to Poonamallee to attend the hearings before the Fast Track Court I, Poonamallee, in H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2007.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the respondent is working as a lecturer in Panimalar Engineering College. It would be difficult for him to attend the hearings before the Family Court, at Chennai, if H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2007, is transferred, as prayed for by the petitioner, since he has to appear in person, before the Family Court, at Chennai, during the hearings in the original petition. He had also submitted that he is paying interim maintenance of a sum of Rs.2,000/-, per month, to the petitioner and therefore, there would be no difficult, for the petitioner to attend the hearings before the Fast Track Court-I, Poonamallee, in H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2007. 


5. The learned counsel had also submitted that the respondent would not cause any harm to her, as apprehended by her. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent had also submitted that the trial, in H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2007, had commenced before the Fast Track Court, I, Poonamallee. A proof affidavit had been filed by the petitioner and the matter is listed for cross examination of P.W.1. Further, due to the interim order of stay granted by this Court, the matter had not proceeded further. 

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. 

7. Since it is noted that the Fast Track Court - I, Poonamallee, is not far away from the place of the petitioner and as H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2007, has been pending from the year of 2007, this Court is not inclined to allow the  transfer civil miscellaneous petition. Hence, it stands dismissed. However, the Fast Track Court, - I, Poonamallee, is directed to hear and dispose of the H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2007, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.









lan

To

1. The I Fast Track Court, Poonamallee

2. The Family Courts at 
   Chennai