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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 2213

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
Usha @ Ramalakshmi & Another - Appellant
Versus
P. Shanmugam - Respondents
Tr.C.M.P.Nos.138 and 139 of 2006 and C.M.P.Nos.6824 and 6825 of 2006
Decided On : 30 August 2006

Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioners:K. Kalyanasundaram, Advocate. For the Respondent:P. Valliappan, Advocate.

Power of High Court to transfer cases cannot be whittled down.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908), Section 24 - Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955), Section 19 -Transfer of matrimonial proceedings - Power of High Court to transfer cases cannot be whittled down as matrimonial proceedings are initiated in Courts subordinate to High Court - There is no provision in Hindu Marriage Act or Family Courts Act, ousting power of High Court, under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code.

Judgment :-

(Prayer: Tr.C.M.P.No.138 of 2006 is filed to withdraw and transfer the proceedings in M.C.No.3 of 2005 from the file of Family Court, Coimbatore to the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin as per the amendment order by this Court in C.M.P.No.8322 of 2006 on 07.07.2006. Tr.C.M.P.No.139 of 2006 is filed to withdraw and transfer H.M.O.P.No.588 of 2004 from the file of Family Court, Coimbatore and transfer the same to Sub Court, Tuticorin.)

The petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent and her minor daughter have filed Tr.C.M.P.No.138 of 2006 praying for withdrawal and transfer of the proceedings in M.C.No.3 of 2005 pending on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore to the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Tuticorin as per the amendment ordered by this Court in C.M.P.No.8322 of 2006 on 07.07.2006. In Tr.C.M.P.No.139 of 2006, the petitioner prays for withdrawal and transfer of H.M.O.P.No.588 of 2004 from the file of Family Court, Coimbatore to the file of Sub Court, Tuticorin.

2. The facts of the case leading to the Transfer Petitions are as follows :

(i) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 01.05.2000 at Tirunelveli as per Hindu rites and customs and a daughter, by name, Meenakshisundari was born to them on 20.05.2002. Their marital life was happy only for one year. The parents of the petitioner presented her 25 sovereigns of gold jewels and house hold articles, worth Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent is a drunkard, addicted to gambling and started demanding dowry from the petitioner’s parents. He did not take care of the petitioner and her minor child and even the basic amenities were not provided by him. The petitioner suffered physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the respondent.

(ii) The petitioner’s father, a Government servant retired on 31.01.2001 and the respondent with an ulterior motive of extracting the retirement benefits, lured him to come and stay at Coimbatore. The respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner’s father. The respondent sold a house to the petitioner’s father for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and he promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to him with interest. But, the respondent failed to pay the said amount and started harassing the petitioner cruelly and said that the balance amount should be adjusted towards dowry. The petitioner also suffered harassment at the hands of the respondent’s parents and his sister. Due to ill-treatment and demand of dowry, the petitioner was constrained to prefer a police complaint before All Women Police Station, Coimbatore.

(iii) The respondent appeared for an enquiry, admitted the atrocities and cruelty caused to the petitioner and promised to settle the matter amicably. The jewels of the petitioner was received by the respondent and pledged in a bank. The petitioner and her minor daughter were living in Coimbatore with the meagre pension received by her father, who retired as a Tahsildar. Since the respondent was totally negligent to the petitioner and her minor daughter and failed to provide even the basic amenities to them, though he was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month, the petitioner was constrained to file M.C.No.3 of 2005 before the Family Court, Coimbatore, claiming maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month, each. In the maintenance petition, the respondent has entered appearance and had filed the counter affidavit.

As a counter blast to the petitioner’s complaint, the respondent filed a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.588 of 2004 before the Family Court, Coimbatore. The petitioner has entered appearance and is contesting the petition.

(iv) The petitioner’s mother expired on 15.02.2006 and within a short span of time, her father also expired on 20.02.2006 due to heart-attack. The respondent was residing very close to the house of the petitioner and she was under constant threat by him. After the death of her parents, since she had no relatives at Coimbatore, she came to live in



















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top