Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. KALAIMATHI, J
Lekshmi – Appellant
Versus
Ragul Ravichandran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition allowed; case transferred to chengalpattu court. (Para 1 , 8) |
| 2. wife's pending divorce petition and travel hardship with child. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. husband contends wife's residence allows easy court access. (Para 4) |
| 4. supreme court precedents favor wife's convenience in transfers. (Para 6) |
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The wife who is arrayed as respondent in H.M.O.P.No.3634 of 2025 herein.
3. The petitioner/wife would aver that she has instituted the Original Petition in F.C.O.P.No.491 of 2024 for dissolution of marriage which is pending before the Family Court, Chengalpattu. She would further aver that she finds it difficult to travel from Velacherry to Chennai for each and every hearing as she has a three old child and has to take care of her parents. She would also aver that maintaining two separate proceedings from two separate courts is causing her mental and emotional stress.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that it is learnt that the petitioner has shifted her residence from Oragadam to Velacherry and that, at present, she is residing at Velacher
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
