IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 22.4.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Tr.C.M.P.No.118 of 2010 C.Jeevitha ... Petitioner/Respondent vs. N.Gokulakrishnan ... Respondent/Petitioner Tr.C.M.P.filed under section 24 of C.P.C.to withdraw the O.P.No.98 of 2009 from the file of the learned Principal Sub Court, Chengalpet and transfer the same to any of the Family Court at Chennai. For petitioner : Mr.G.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.K.Jayaraman O R D E R This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to withdraw O.P.No.98 of 2009, from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, and to transfer the same to any one the Family Courts, at Chennai. 2. It has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent had taken place, on 29.4.2009, at Thirukkalukundram, as per the Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, both the petitioner and the respondent had lived together, at Chennai, for one month. Thereafter, due to the harassment meted out to the petitioner by the respondent, she had started residing separately. While so, the respondent had filed O.P.No.98 of 2009, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, for restitution of conjugal rights. Even though the original petition had been listed for hearing on a few occasions, the petitioner could not appear before the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, as she was writing the examination of the Bachelor of Arts degree course, at Bharathi Arts College, Mint, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. It has been further stated that the petitioner is residing with her parents, at Perambur and the respondent is residing at Neelangarai. The petitioner is finding it difficult to go Chengalpattu to attend the hearings before the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, due to her studies. Further, either the father of the petitioner or her mother has to accompany the petitioner during her visits to Chengalpattu, to attend the hearings, in O.P.No.98 of 2009. 4. It has also been stated that it would also be difficult for the respondent to travel from Neelangarai to Chengalpattu. Instead, it would be easier for both the petitioner, as well as the respondent, to attend the hearings before the Family Court, at Chennai, if the original petition is transferred, as prayed for by the petitioner. 5. It has also been stated that the petitioner is depending on her parents, for her maintenance and for her studies. She would be spending valuable time and money by traveling to Chengalpattu, to attend the hearings before the Principal Subordinate Court, at Chengalpattu. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that, for the reasons stated in the affidavit of the petitioner, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition may be allowed by this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that the respondent would face serious difficulties to attend the proceedings before the Family Court, if the original petition, in O.P.No.98 of 2009, is transferred from the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, to the Family Court, at Chennai. Further, the examinations, in which the petitioner was participating, had been completed. It has also been stated that the proceedings before the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, in O.P.No.98 of 2009, is at the final stage of hearing. Therefore, the transfer civil miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, this Court does not find it appropriate to withdraw O.P.No.98 of 2009, pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Chengalpattu, and to transfer the same to the Family Court, at Chennai, as prayed for by the petitioner in the present transfer civil miscellaneous petition. As such, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Principal Sub Judge, Chengalpet +1cc to Mr.G.Karthikean, Advocate Sr 26849 +1cc to Mr.K.Jayaraman, Advocate Sr 26764 RJ(CO) km/18.5. Tr.C.M.P.No.118 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/