This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.203 of 2017 from the file of the Sub-Court, Thoothukudi and transfer the same to the file of the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram. The petitioner is the wife.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 30.9.2009 at Arulmigu Murugan Temple, Tiruchendur as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, for some time, the respondent was living happily with the petitioner. From the wedlock, one female child viz., Deepika was born on 5.9.2011 and a male child namely Deepak was born on 4.6.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to sexual abuse and torture by the respondent and he had neglected to look after the family. When the petitioner questioned the same, the respondent started treating the petitioner indifferently and sent out the petitioner and her children from the matrimonial home. Though the petitioner tried her level best to save her marriage life by adjusting all kind of ill treatments, she could not succeed in her attempt. Hence on http://www.judis.nic.in 3 6.11.2017, she lodged a police complaint against the respondent before the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District seeking suitable legal action against the respondent and also seeking protection.
3. According to the petitioner, she was ready and willing to live with the respondent. However, the respondent was not ready to live with the petitioner. The respondent was not looking after the petitioner and her children. While so, he had filed H.M.O.P.No.203 of 2017 before the Sub-Court, Thoothukudi for divorce, where the petitioner was served with notice and she had entered appearance through her counsel.
4. Further case of the petitioner is that she and children were fully depending upon her parents for their livelihood. Moreover, she could not travel all the way from Kanyakumari District to Thoothukudi District to look after and contest the case. The petitioner was not employing anywhere to look after herself and two minor children. It is alleged that the respondent was threatening the petitioner that if she attend the Court at Thoothukudi, he would upload her personal photos and videos on face book, other social medias and internet and also http://www.judis.nic.in 4 threatening her with dire consequences. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.203 of 2017 from the file of Sub- Court, Thoothukudi to the file of Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram.
5. The respondent has not filed the counter-affidavit.
6. I heard Mr.Bharathykannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ka.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has failed to look after the petitioner and her children and in fact, he has not cared them. Now the petitioner and her children are living with the parents of the petitioner. He would submit that with an ill-motive, the respondent had filed divorce petition before the Sub- Court, Thoothukudi to drag the petitioner to the Court and also cause irreparable hardship to her.
8. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner could not able to travel all the way from Kanyakumari District to Thoothukudi District to look after the case. Moreover, the respondent http://www.judis.nic.in 5 often threatening the petitioner by stating that if she appeared before the Court, he would upload her personal photos in the social media and internet. With the above submission, the learned counsel prayed for transfer of the divorce petition filed by the respondent from the file of Sub-Court, Thoothukudi to the file of Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, contended that the allegations set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are without any basis and only to drag on the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.203 of 2017, the petitioner has filed the petition, which is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the transfer CMP.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.
11. In her affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner alleged that she had lodged a police complaint on 6.11.2017 against the respondent before the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, however, the Superintendent of Police, http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Kanyakumari District has not taken any action against the respondent.
12. On the perusal of the order sheet, it is found that on 6.4.2018, this Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District to file a report with regard to the action taken on the petitioner's complaint dated 06.11.2017. Accordingly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanyakumari District filed his report in the form of counter stating that pursuant to the order of the Superintendent of Police, he had conducted enquiry and the enquiry reveals that the respondent threatened the petitioner and also recorded petitioner's bathroom videos and hosted the same in the social networks. Since the petitioner and the respondent compromised themselves and submitted written statements, he had completed the enquiry.
13. This Court does not want to go into the merits of the alleged complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 06.11.2017 before the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District and the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanyakumari District, as the same are not necessary for resolving the point involved in this Transfer CMP. It is for the concerned Court to http://www.judis.nic.in 7 deal with the said aspect, if needs.
14. The respondent has filed H.M.O.P.No.203 of 2017 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thuthookudi against the petitioner for dissolution of the marriage solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent on 30.9.2009, wherein the petitioner had entered appearance through her counsel and contesting the case. There is no dispute that from the wedlock one female child and one male child was born and both the children were living with the respondent.
15. According to the petitioner, after driven out of the matrimonial home by the respondent, she was living with her parents at Netta Paravilai. The said fact has not been denied by the respondent. The Sub-Court, Thoothukudi is said to be at a distance of around 400 kilo meters from Netta Paravilai, where the petitioner now residing. For attending each hearing, the petitioner has to travel around 400 kilo meters spending huge amount for travelling and other expenses. Further, for each and every hearing, she has to carry her children. According to the petitioner, it is difficult to meet out the expenses for her travel. There was some force in the submission of the petitioner.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
16. It is settled that convenience of the wife must be given utmost importance.
17. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court held that it will not be conducive for a lady to travel all the distance from her place of present living to the place where the husband has instituted the case.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to transfer H.M.O.P.No.203 of 2017 on the file of Sub-Court, Thuthookudi to the file of Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram. If H.M.O.P.No.203 of 2017 is transferred from the file of Sub-Court, Thuthookudi to the file of Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. On the other hand, if not transferred as prayed for, the petitioner would be put to irreparable hardship. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner.
19. In the result, the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is http://www.judis.nic.in 9 allowed. The petition in H.M.O.P.No.203 of 2017 is withdrawn from the file of the Sub-Court, Thuthookudi and transferred to the file of the Sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District. The Sub-Court, Thuthookudi is directed to transmit the entire records within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the entire records in H.M.O.P.No.203 of 2017, the Sub- Court, Padmanabhapuram is directed to dispose of the same, within a period of four months thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.