w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Vijayalakshmi v/s Manikandan

    C.R.P(PD)(MD) No. 290 of 2019 & C.M.P.(MD) No. 1399 of 2019

    Decided On, 12 February 2019

    At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court


    For the Petitioners: P. Vadivel, Advocate. For the Respondent: -------

Judgment Text

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, call for the records relating to the impugned fair and decreetal order dated 08.10.2018 and made in transfer O.P.No.180 of 2017 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, set aside the same and allow this Civil Revision petition.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in transf

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

er O.P.No.180 of 2017.

2. The transfer O.P.No.180 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner, seeking transfer of the case in H.M.O.P.No.174 of 2017, pending on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam to the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. The respondent has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in H.M.O.P.No.174 of 2017, which is pending on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Kumbakonam and the petitioner herein filed a maintenance petition in M.C.No.35 of 2017, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur, seeking maintenance.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent/husband is causing cruelty and he had prevented the petitioner from entering into the matrimonial home and now the petitioner is staying with her parents at Tanjore. He further submitted that the petitioner herein had to travel 50 kilometers from Tanjore to attend H.M.O.P proceedings at Kumbakonam. Further, on an earlier occasion, the respondent has also made a life threat to the petitioner and her parents.

5. Hence, it is very difficult for this petitioner to attend the court at Kumabakonam with the accompaniment of her parents and it is also difficult for the petitioner to attend the court at Kumbakonam without the help of the parents and to face the criminal threat made by the husband/respondent. No other reason has been stated.

6. In the counter statement, the respondent/husband has stated that the petitioner is running a Herbal Beauty Parlour in Tanjore and she is also earning more than Rs.50,000/- per month. There are also contradictory facts raised by the petitioner herein in the H.M.O.P. Proceedings as well as in the maintenance petition.

7. The only grievance of the petitioner is that she aggrieved over the place of the court, there is no other inconvenience for seeking transfer of the said application. Only inconvenience is that there is a life threat by the respondent/husband and she has to take care of her parents.

8. Per contra, the reason stated by the petitioner before the trial court is that the petitioner had no separate income of her own and now, she is residing along with her parents' house at Thanjavur and she finds is very difficult to travel to Kumbakonam to attend the H.M.O.P proceedings. Also, there is a life threat to the petitioner at the hands of the respondent.

9. The above reasons has not been made as a grievance by the trial court in the transfer petition and hence, the reason stated for denial of transfer of the said application by the trail court is not proper. This observation is made only by the court and not for the averments made by the petitioner.

10. Regarding the averments made in the petition as well as in the counter statement, it is observed that there is no life threat by the respondent against this petitioner for attending the court at Kumbakonam. There is no such document or any other relevant document filed by the petitioner for the life threat made by the respondent and there is no other document regarding cruelty that has been caused by the respondent. The petitioner has not stated anything and hence, there is no acceptable reason stated by the petitioner for transferring of said H.M.O.P from Kumbakonam to Tanjore, where M.C is filed.

11. For that, it is also observed the distance between the two courts are only 50 kilometres and there is no life threat as stated by the petitioner. This Court does not wants any interference with the order passed by the trial court.

12. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs

Already A Member?