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

2020 Supreme(Mad) 92

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
Jayvidhya Jeyaraj - Appellant
Versus
Hari Hara Sankaran - Respondent
TR.C.M.P.No. 938 of 2019 & C.M.P.No. 25631 of 2019
Decided On : 28-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:C. Prabhakaran, Advocate. For the Respondent:M/s. S. Deepika, Advocate.

The main legal point established is that the place of hearing in matrimonial matters should be where the wife resides, as per Section 19(iiia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Headnote:

Transfer Petition - Transfer of Case - Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure - [Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure] - The court examined a transfer petition filed to transfer a case pending in the III Additional Family Court, Chennai to the Family Court at Tuticorin. The court dismissed the transfer petition, directing the III Additional Family Court to proceed with the case expeditiously and take into account the report of Schizophrenia Research Foundation (SCARF) in its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petition was filed to transfer a case from the III Additional Family Court, Chennai to the Family Court at Tuticorin. The wife, working in a bank for over 10 years, sought the transfer citing differences with her husband and her residence with her parents. The husband contended that the wife had a mental illness, which she denied. The court ordered counseling and examination by Schizophrenia Research Foundation (SCARF), which confirmed the wife's schizophrenia.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the transfer petition, emphasizing that the matter should be heard where the wife resides and not where her father resides. The court directed the III Additional Family Court to proceed with the case expeditiously, taking into account the SCARF report.

Issues: The main issue was the transfer of the case from the III Additional Family Court, Chennai to the Family Court at Tuticorin.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the case should be heard where the wife resides, as per Section 19(iiia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court also emphasized the need to consider the SCARF report in the trial court's decision.

Final Decision: The transfer petition was dismissed, and the III Additional Family Court was directed to proceed with the case expeditiously, taking into account the SCARF report.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.3488 of 2019 from the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai and transfer to the Hon'ble Family Court at Tuticorin or to any other Court having jurisdiction.)

The Transfer Petition has been filed to transfer the case in H.M.O.P.No.3488 of 2019 pending on the file of the III Additional Family Court, Chennai to the file of the Family Court at Tuticorin or to any other Court having jurisdiction.

2. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for hearing on 10.02.2020 in the Chambers and both the parties were present. On the said date, by consent of the parties, this Court had passed the following interim order:

“3. According to the petitioner/wife, she is working in a Bank for more than 10 years and her marriage with the respondent / husband was solemnized on 02.03.2017. The wife has stated that after the difference between them, she has been residing with her parents. She has further stated that she has been taking a medicine called “Sizdone” and the said factum has not been suppressed to her husband at any point of time. Though she is perfectly normal and fit to lead the matrimonial life, her husband finds one reason or the other to break the marriage.

4. In reply, the husband has submitted that even prior to the marriage, her wife had been taking treatment for her mental block and suppressing her illness, her marriage with him was performed. He has further submitted that they have no issues and when they consulted with a Doctor for begetting a child, it was opined that the medicine which she is taking will disturb the process of pregnancy and the medicine cannot be stopped immediately, as the dosage has to be reduced slowly.

5. Though the husband has stated that her wife is taking the pill for her mental illness, both parties are unable to inform the exact name of the illness. The wife has stated that though she has some health problems, certainly, it is not related to mental illness.

6. At this juncture, this Court posed a question whether both parties are ready and willing to go for a Counselling, so that, each party may be given a counselling by the Counsellor, in order to resolve the differences between them. Both parties have agreed to go for counselling, stating that a suitable Counsellor may be suggested by the Court so that they will appear for counselling on the date prescribed by this Court or the Counsellor without fail.

7. In view of the above, this Court requests Dr.Shantha Kamath, Schizophrenia Research Foundation (SCARF), No.7A, North Main Road, Anna Nagar (West Extn.), Chennai 600 101 to give counselling to the parties herein preferably on 18.02.2020, and on further dates, if needed, and also ascertain whether the tablet being consumed by the wife will stand in the way of her matrimonial life. The Doctor is requested to send the outcome of the counselling in the form of a Report to this Court before 26.02.2020, to enable this Court arrive at a decision in this matter. The expenditure for the Counselling and the Doctor's fee, if any shall be borne by both parties in equal share.

8. Registry is directed to despatch a copy of this order before 13.02.2020 to Schizophrenia Research Foundation (SCARF), No.7A, North Main Road, Anna Nagar (West Extn.), Chennai 600 101 (Phone Nos.044-2615 3971 / 2615 1073) along with necessary papers pertaining to the case on hand, on or before 14.02.2020 and the parties can contact Mrs.Karpagavalli, Senior Co-ordinator of SCARF, regarding the date and time of appointment.

9. List this matter before this Court on 28.02.2020.”

3. After examination of both the husband and wife, a report has been sent to this Court (the Addressee has been wrongly shown as III Additional Judge, Family Court, High Court, Chennai) and in the report, it has been clearly stated that the wife is a schizophrenic, suffering from serious mental illness.

4. In the meanwhile, the fat

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

AI

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