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

C.CLUNYLEELA – Appellant
Versus
S.P.MARY JOHN – Respondent
TR CMP 914/2018



Advocates:
['M/S GURUPRASAD M', '', 'S YOGALAKSHMI', 'R LAVANYA', 'NOTICE SENT TO SOLE RESPDT', '', 'NOT READY NOTICE REG SOLE RESPDT', 'PRIVATE NOTICE', '', 'S P MARY JOHN', 'S/O C S PANEERSELVAM']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.01.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

Tr.C.M.P.No.914 of 2018

and

C.M.P.Nos.22430 & 22432 of 2018

C.Clunyleela

...Petitioner

..Vs..

S.P.Mary John

...Respondent

Prayer: Petition is filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., to

withdraw I.D.O.P.No.4 of 2018 pending on the file of the

Principal District Court, Karur and transfer the same to the

file of the Principal District Court, Salem.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.S.Arun Prasath

for Mr.M.Guruprasad

For Respondent

:

No Appearance

O R D E R

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been

filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to

withdraw the case i.e. I.D.O.P.No.4 of 2018 pending on the file

of the Principal District Court, Karur and transfer the same to

the file of the Principal District Court, Salem.

2. The petitioner is the wife and respondent is the

husband. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was

solemnized on 08.05.2017 at C.S.I. Holy Trinity Church, Salem,

as per Christian religion rites and customs. After the marriage,

both the petitioner and respondent were lived together in the

matrimonial home for a considerable period. Due to the wedlock,

on 02.04.2018, the petitioner gave birth to one male child and

as of now, the said child is in the custody of the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

After gave birth to the said male child, difference of opinion

arose between them, resultantly, the petitioner left the

matrimonial home and residing along with her parents at Salem.

3. After leaving the matrimonial home by the

petitioner, the respondent has filed a petition against the

petitioner before the Principal District Court, Karur, under

Section 10(x) of Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for the relief of

annulling the marriage happened between them on 08.05.2017. The

said petition is now pending before the Principal District

Court, Karur as I.D.O.P.No.4 of 2018. In the said circumstances,

the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the

present Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition for the relief

stated earlier in the first paragraph of this order.

4. According to the petitioner, she is residing at

Salem along with her parents and the distance between her

parents residence and Karur is about 100 kilometers, being a

lady, it is very difficult for her to attend the Court

proceedings at Karur, along with the minor child, who is aged

about 9 months. Further, she is not having any independent

income and she is depending on her parents for her day-to-day

needs and for litigation expenses.

5. In respect to the respondent, he was served with

Court notice as early as on 21.01.2019 and his name is printed

in the cause list, thereafter till today, he has not appeared

before this Court either in person or through counsel. It shows

that the respondent is not having any objection in respect to

this petition.

6. In the said circumstances, as per the affidavit

filed by the petitioner, as of now, she is residing with her

parents in Salem without any independent income, she has

specifically stated that, she is depending on her parents for

her day-to-day needs. Further, being a lady, it is very

difficult for her to attend the Court proceedings at Karur.

7. It is well settled law that whenever, the transfer

petition is filed in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of

the wife shall be given preference, as held by our Honourable

Apex Court in the judgments in Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi and

another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta reported in 2008 (9) SCC 353

and in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another reported in AIR

2002 SC 396.

8. Apart from that, for raising objection in respect to

the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the

respondent, the respondent has not appeared before this Court,

furthe

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top