SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1116

N.S.HEGDE, B.P.SINGH, S.B.SINHA
KANAGALAKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
A. VENKATESAN – Respondent


ORDER

1. THIS IS A PETITION FILED BY THE WIFE SEEKING TRANSFER OF PENDING MATRIMONIAL DISPUTE BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT AT BANDRA, MUMBAI TO THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, TIRUNELVELI, TAMIL NADU ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS DIFFICULT FOR HER TO TRAVEL FROM TIRUNELVELI TO MUMBAI TO PURSUE HER CASE. LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT HUSBAND HAS FILED HIS COUNTER STATING THEREIN THAT HE IS PREPARED TO BEAR THE EXPENSES NOT ONLY OF THE PETITIONER BUT ALSO OF HER ACCOMPANYING PERSON BOTH FOR TRAVEL AND STAY AT MUMBAI. RECORDING THE SAID STATEMENT, WE THINK IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO TRANSFER THE PENDING CASE AT THE FAMILY COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI. HOWEVER, WE DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY TO THE PETITIONER THE TRAVEL EXPENSES AS WELL AS FOR THEIR STAY DURING THE DATES OF HEARING IN MUMBAI. WE DIRECT THE FAMILY COURT TO DISPOSE OF THE PETITION AND APPLICATIONS FOR INTERIM MAINTENANCE IF ANY WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER AND DIRECT THE FAMILY COURT, IF POSSIBLE, TO CROSS-EXAMINE BOTH THE PARTIES IN REGARD TO THEIR AFFIDAVIT ON THE SAME DAY.

2. THE TRANSFER PETITION IS DISALLOWED.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top