SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

S.K.Sivaranjani vs K.Ganesh Babu on 9 January, 2020

Tr.C.M.P.No.716 of 2019


DATED : 09.01.2020



Tr.C.M.P.No.716 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.20258 of 2019

S.K.Sivaranjani … Petitioner


K.Ganesh Babu … Respondent

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of
the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw the O.P.No.1704 of 2019 on the
file of learned VII Judge, Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same
to the file of Additional Family Court, Coimbatore to be tried along with
M.C.No.148 of 2019.

For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Viji

For Respondent : Mr.P.Prince Premkumar


The petitioner herein has filed the present petition praying to

withdraw the O.P.No.1704 of 2019 on the file of learned VII Judge,

Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to the file of Additional

Family Court, Coimbatore to be tried along with M.C.No.148 of 2019.
Tr.C.M.P.No.716 of 2019

2. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband.

The case of the petitioner is that she got married to the respondent on

22.01.2018 at Sankara Narayana Kalyana Mandapam at Maruthamalai

Main Road, Coimbatore and the same was an arranged marriage, which

took place in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. There were no

children born to them. The petitioner is a MCA Degree holder and was

waiting for a suitable job by attending interviews and the respondent

claims that he is a MBA Graduate and working as a HR Specialist at

Flextronics Company, Taramani, Perungudi, Chennai, however, the

respondent is not qualified for that degree and same had came to light

to the petitioner at the time of counselling only, which took place at

Family Court, Chennai.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent is the

distant relative to the petitioner and after engagement, just for a two

months, he spoke with the petitioner and thereafter, he had refrained

himself from talking to the petitioner. The respondent just before two

weeks to marriage, had expressed that he is not willing to marry the

petitioner. As soon as the petitioner had informed the same to her

father, her father had enquired the same with the respondent’s family, in

consequence, the respondent’s family had informed that all the

arrangements for the marriage were done with the consent of the
Tr.C.M.P.No.716 of 2019

respondent only. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father had spent lot of

money on her marriage and solemnized the same. Thereafter, the

respondent’s parents had started to harass the petitioner by causing

mental agony and demanding dowry. In view of the unbearable torture,

the petitioner was forced to lodge a police complaint against the

respondent and his family members. The petitioner issued a legal

notice on 27.03.2019 to the respondent with reference of her occupied

portion with full details and on receiving the same, the respondent filed a

divorce petition in M.O.P.No.74 of 2019 with false address. Further, the

respondent is fully aware that the petitioner is staying at Coimbatore, but

chosen to issue false address at Chennai and that the petitioner had

attended three hearings at Family Court, Chennai and counselling also.

The petitioner finds it very difficult to travel from Coimbatore to Chennai

for each and every hearing and her father has to accompany her, who is

a heart patient, hence she seeks transfer.

4. According to the respondent, the expenses of the marriage held

between him and the petitioner was equally shared and there is no

dowry harassment, as alleged by the petitioner and it is the petitioner,

who had caused mental agony and always threatened the respondent

and his family members stating that her grand father is a retired Deputy

Superintendent of Police and that she can do anything as against the
Tr.C.M.P.No.716 of 2019

respondent and his family. Further, the petitioner used to always

suspect the respondent and whenever the respondent explains his

situation in his office, the petitioner was not ready to listen his words and

that a wordy quarrel took place, due to the same, petitioner had left the

matrimonial home and never turned back. In consequence, the

respondent requested her to come and join with him, for which, she

uttered that she is not willing to live with him. Left with no other option,

the respondent had filed a divorce petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has filed a petition under Domestic Violence Act in

D.V.A.No.133 of 2019 and M.C.No.148 of 2019 was filed before the

II Family Court, Coimbatore and the same are pending, hence, the

petitioner seeks to transfer the divorce petition, viz., O.P.No.1704 of

2019 filed by the respondent / husband to the Additional Family Court,


6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

documents on record.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking

note of the fact the well settled law that whenever, the transfer
Tr.C.M.P.No.716 of 2019

application is filed in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife

shall be given preference, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

Judgments reported in 2008 (9) SCC 353 [Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi and

another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta] and AIR 2002 SC 396

[Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another] and to avoid

conflicting decisions, this Court is inclined to allow the petition filed by

the petitioner and the same is hereby allowed.

8. Accordingly, the O.P.No.1704 of 2019 on the file of

learned VII Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai is withdrawn and

transferred to the file of Additional Family Court, Coimbatore to be tried

along with M.C.No.148 of 2019. The learned VII Additional Judge,

Family Court, Chennai is directed to transmit the entire case bundles /

records relating to O.P.No.1704 of 2019 to the Additional Family Court,

Coimbatore within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the learned VII Additional

Judge, Family Court, Chennai is directed to dispose of the same as

expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed. No costs.


Index : yes/no
Tr.C.M.P.No.716 of 2019

Internet : yes/no



1. The VII Additional Family Court,

2. The Additional Family Court,

Tr.C.M.P.No.716 of 2019 and
C.M.P.No.20258 of 2019


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation