Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J
Saranya – Appellant
Versus
Aravind – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of marriage and initiation of proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's rationale for transferring petition based on convenience. (Para 3) |
| 3. final ruling allowing petition with no costs. (Para 4) |
ORDER
The petitioner and the respondent married at Karamadai on 09.11.2018.
The wife had alleged that after marriage, the husband was with her only for five days, and he left for the United States. Due to disputes and differences between the parties, they are litigating before the court.
2. The wife has initiated HMOP.No.108 of 2020 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Mettupalayam, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. After having entered appearance in this proceeding, the husband has initiated HMOP.No. 25 of 2022 on the file of the Subordinate Court at Kangeyam, seeking divorce. The distance between Kangeyam and Mettupalayam is around 200 km to and fro. The husband is litigating the matter by appointing a power of attorney. There is no dispute that he is residing in the United States.
3. The wife having knocked the doors of the court at least two years earlier than the husband, I would go by the priority and take into account the convenience of the wife. Furtherm
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
