Ramadevi vs R. Ramkumar

M. Jaichandren, J.—This petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to pass an order to withdraw H.M.O.P. No. 345 of

2009, from the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram, and to transfer the same to the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, to be tried along

with H.M.O.P. No. 125 of 2009.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner has filed H.M.O.P. No. 125 of 2009, before the Principal

Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, praying for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. He has stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent had taken place at Thanjavur and that the petitioner has been living at Thanjavur, from the year, 2008. Therefore, the petitioner had

filed H.M.O.P. No. 125 of 2009, before the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner has no relatives at Tambaram, where the respondent had filed

H.M.O.P. No. 345 of 2009, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram, for dissolution of marriage. It has also been stated that the petitioner

has no other male relatives in the family, except her father, who is a cancer patient. Since, the claims made by the petitioner had not been disputed

by the respondent, it is appropriate for this Court to transfer H.M.O.P. No. 345 of 2009, from the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram, to be

heard along with H.M.O.P. No. 125 of 2009, pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur.

The learned Counsel had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001) 10 SCC 41, to

substantiate his contention that the convenience of the wife must be taken into account, while considering the request for transfer of a petition filed

in matrimonial proceedings. He had also relied on a decision of this Court, in Baby Chitra Vs. K. Radhakrishnan, wherein, it has been stated that it

is not fair on the part of the Court to order a lady to travel a long distance for showing appearance for each and every hearing.

Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the petitioner had filed H.M.O.P. No. 125 of 2009, for

restitution of conjugal rights, before the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, only after she had received the notice sent by the respondent,

regarding H.M.O.P. No. 345 of 2009, which he had filed before the Subordinate Court, Tambaram, for dissolution of marriage. The marriage

between the petitioner and the respondent had taken place, on 10.2.2006. However, the marriage had not been consummated, due to the fact that

the petitioner has been mentally ill. She has also been abusing the respondent, physically.

The learned Counsel had also submitted that it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to state that there is no male member to assist her to

appear before the Subordinate Court, Tambaram, during the hearings, in H.M.O.P. No. 345 of 2009, as she has a cousin brother living at

Tambaram. The notice regarding H.M.O.P. No. 345 of 2009, had been sent, on 14.2.2009, and the petitioner had received the same, on

16.2.2009. Thereafter, she has filed H.M.O.P. No. 125 of 2009, before the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, knowing full well that the respondent

had filed H.M.O.P. No. 345 of 2009, before the Subordinate Court, Tambaram. In all fairness, the petitioner ought to have filed the petition for

restitution of conjugal rights at Tambaram. He had also submitted that the respondent has been threatened by the father of the petitioner. The

transfer petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

In reply, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the marriage had taken place at Thanjavur. As the petitioner is living

at Thanjavur, it is only appropriate for the petitioner to file H.M.O.P. No. 125 of 2009, for restitution of conjugal rights, before the Principal

Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur. He had also submitted that the allegation of the respondent that he had been threatened by the father of the

petitioner is ill founded as the oral submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has not been substantiated by any

evidence, nor has it been stated in the pleadings filed on behalf of the respondent.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court

is of the considered view that it is appropriate to withdraw H.M.O.P. No. 345 of 2009, pending on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram,

and to transfer the same to the Subordinate Court, Thanjavur, to be heard, along with H.M.O.P. No. 125 of 2009. The petitioner has claimed that

she has no male relative living at Tambaram, except her father, who is a cancer patient. She has also filed a number of documents before this Court

to show that the petitioner''s father has been undergoing treatment for cancer. Further, there is nothing shown on behalf of the respondent that he

has been threatened by the petitioner''s father, except the oral statement made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. In such

circumstances, the Tr.C.M.P. No. 491 of 2009, is allowed. No costs.