Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 1383
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR
Daniel Satya Prakash
Versus
Sylvia Vasthi Daniel
Tr.CMP No: 320 of 2006 and MP.No: 1 of 2006
Decided On : 19-04-2007
For the Petitioner:R. Subbiah, Advocate. For the Respondent:K. Govi Ganesan, Advocate.
The court considered medical grounds and the need for care and assistance as compelling reasons to allow the transfer petition.
Headnote:
Section 24 CPC - Transfer of Case - The court allowed the transfer petition filed by the husband, citing medical grounds due to his open heart surgery and the need for care and assistance, and transferred the case from Madurai to Chennai for joint trial with the petition filed by the husband.
Fact of the Case:
The husband filed a petition to transfer a case from Madurai to Chennai, citing his open heart surgery and the need for care and assistance, as well as the inconvenience of traveling a long distance for every hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that due to the husband's medical condition and the need for care, the transfer petition should be allowed on medical grounds.
Issues: The main issue was the transfer of the case from Madurai to Chennai based on the husband's medical condition and the inconvenience of traveling for hearings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the medical grounds and the need for care and assistance as compelling reasons to allow the transfer petition.
Final Decision: The transfer petition was allowed, and the case was transferred from Madurai to Chennai for joint trial with the petition filed by the husband.
Key Points: - The transfer petition under Section 24 CPC was allowed on medical grounds due to the husband's open heart surgery and need for care and assistance, transferring IDOP 20/2006 from Madurai to Chennai for joint trial with OP 2698/2006 (!) . - The court noted the husband’s medical condition and the impracticality of traveling ~450 km for every hearing as compelling reasons for transfer (!) . - The transfer was to be to the II Additional Family Court, Chennai; MP 1 of 2007 was closed; costs were not awarded (!) . - The petitioner husband filed the CRP under Section 24 CPC to withdraw IDOP 20/2006 and transfer to Chennai to trial with OP 2698/2006 (!) . - The facts include the marriage solemnization, the child’s birth, the husband's medical history (open heart surgery in 2002), and relocation to Chennai for care [p_21000344750001, p_21000344750002, p_21000344750003, p_21000344750004]. - The court recognized medical grounds and need for care as compelling reasons to allow transfer (!) . - The decision permits transfer with a possibility for the wife to accompanying travel expenses via petition in Prl. Family Court, Chennai (!) .
How to transfer a case on medical grounds under Section 24 CPC?
What is the basis for transferring the IDOP and OP from Madurai to Chennai for joint trial?
What are the conditions under which the court may transfer a case for the convenience of parties due to medical reasons?
This CRP has been filed by the petitioner/husband under Section 24 CPC to withdraw the IDOP No:20 of 2006 now pending on the file of the Family Court, Madurai to transfer the same to the Principal Family Court, Chennai to try along with OP.No.2698 of 2006.
2. According to the petitioner the marriage between himself and the respondent/wife was solemnized in the presence of elders of their family at St.George Church, Madurai on 5. 1989. Thereafter they lived together for 17 years and out of the wedlock they have a female child by name D.Priyadarshini Sarah Pauline in the year 1998. During May 2002, he developed a heart ailment and on the advice given by Vijaya Heart Foundation, Chennai during June 2002, he got operated at Cleveland Clink Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA and he underwent open heart surgery in which he was given aortic valve conduit and there was a aortic root replacement, right auxiliary artery annulations with Hemashield (aortic valve replacement with conduit and reimplantation of coronary arteries). The whole expenses were met by by the company, its employees, friends, relatives and also sale of his sisters jewells and sale of land, apart from borrowing from third parties.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that after return from USA on completion of successful surgery he had constant and regular check ups with Vijaya Heart Foundation viz., Prothrombin test for adjusting the dosage of anticoagulants to keep constant monitoring over the functioning of heart and he resumed to duty on complete recovery and was leading a happy family life with the respondent till 35. 2006.
4. It is stated that on 35. 2006 the respondent/wife suddenly left the matrimonial home without his knowledge and information to her parental house along with the daughter and she had taken with her all the jewells, cheque book, ATM cards, title deed of a land etc, Thereafter their parents did not send his wife and daughter along with him and the petitioner visited the her parents house on 16. 2006 along with Church Pastors, friends and well wishers and his parents. But the parents of the respondent did not allow him to see and talk to the respondent/wife. They used filthy language and made verbal threats. According to the petitioner the respondents parents with a fraudulent intention refused to sent his daughter and the respondent and induced the respondent as well. According to him, the respondent forgetting all the hospitality extended all along, a the ill advice and evil designs to spoil the family life, deserted the matrimonial home without any rhyme or reasons. The respondent also filed IDOP.No.20 of 2006 before the Family Court, Madurai for judicial separation with ulterior motive and on false allegations. He attended the said court on 28. 2006 and the respondents parents did not permitted her to even attend the conciliatory proceedings which was scheduled on 110. 2006. Thereafter he filed a petition in OP.No: 2698 of 2006 before the Family Court, Chennai under Section 32 of the Indian Christian Divorce Act for restitution of Conjugal rights.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/husband is a heart patient as narrated by him in his affidavit and he needs some body to help him and he needs homely food with less oil and there is nobody in Karur to take care of him. Hence he has been transferred to Chennai at his own request and living with his mother and brother. Her sister is also in Chennai to look after him. Thus in view of his heatl problem he finds it very difficult to visit Madurai in connection with the IDOP filed by the respondent. Further there is an endanger to his life at the hands of the respondents parents. Hence the IDOP filed by the wife shall be transferred to Chennai Family Court for joint trial along with the OP filed by the petitioner.
6. Normally, when considering the convenience of the parties, as observed by the Honble Supreme Court, the convenience of the wi
