V.R. Thirumal vs V. Samitha

S. Tamilvanan, J.—Heard both the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the Respondent.

This Tr.C.M.P. has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking an Order to withdraw H.M.O.P. No.95 of 2012 pending on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpet and transfer the same to the Family Court, Chennai.

It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner is the Husband of the Respondent/Wife. The aforesaid H.M.O.P. was admittedly filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage, that was solemnized between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 20.08.2010 at Indira Narayana Mahal, Chengalpet. During the pendency of the said H.M.O.P., the Petitioner herein filed the Tr.C.M.P. seeking transfer of the H.M.O.P. from the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpet to the Family Court, Chennai.

Mr. V. Bhiman, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, Husband of the Respondent is facing threat at the hands of the Respondent and some rowdy element threatened on behalf of the Respondent and there is no safety for the Petitioner in attending the Court at Chengalpet.

Per contra, Mr. N. Sudhaarsan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent is ready and willing to join with the Petitioner and to lead her family life and therefore, there is no possibility for the Respondent to cause any threat to the life of the Petitioner and further submitted that the Respondent is aged about 41 years. He further submitted that only with a view of getting divorce and to remarry some other woman, the Petitioner is attempting, for which raising untenable allegations against the Respondent.

In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the Respondent relied on the decision, M. Deepalakshmi v. R. Ramesh, 2008 (4) CTC 520, wherein this Court has held as follows:

"9. While deciding an Application for transfer of proceedings, the prime consideration would be the ends of justice. It is not the mere convenience of the parties that is material. In case it is demonstrated that the trial in a chosen forum would result in denial of justice to a party to the proceedings, the same is a valid ground to order transfer of proceedings. However, there cannot be any straight-jacket formula in all the transfer matters and it all depends upon the facts of each case. It is true that when transfer is permitted, it would cause inconvenience to the other party, but the paramount consideration being one to do complete justice, such inconvenience has only to be ignored."

This Court in various decisions, has held that while deciding the Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has to consider primarily the inconvenience faced by the Wife, in attending the Court. In the instant case, according to the Respondent, she is residing in the Territorial jurisdiction of Chengalpet, where H.M.O.P. is pending and further, the marriage was solemnized at Chengalpet.

The Petitioner, having chosen to file H.M.O.P. No.95 of 2012 before the Principal Sub-Court, Chengalpet, has filed this Tr.C.M.P. seeking transfer of the H.M.O.P. to the Family Court, Chennai.

Having gone through the averments made in the accompanying Affidavit and the submissions made by both the learned Counsel, I am of the view that the Petitioner is not entitled to get transfer of the H.M.O.P. to the Family Court, Chennai, in the light of various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court and accordingly, this Petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, this Tr.C.M.P. is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.