1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:20.10.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN Tr.C.M.P (MD).No.176 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.1 of 2011 R.Rengarajan :Petitioner -Vs- V.Bama :Respondent PRAYER:Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to withdraw the HMOP No.430 of 2010 on the file of the learned IIIrd Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai and to transfer to the file of the Family Court, Madurai. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondent : No appearance ORDER After invoking the proviso to section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this petition is preferred by the petitioner to withdraw the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.430 of 2010 from the file of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai and to transfer to the file of the Family Court, Madurai. 2.The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent. On account of matrimonial dispute, the respondent has filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.169 of 2004, seeking the relief of divorce on the file of the Family Court, Madurai. Since, the learned Judge of the Family Court was related to both the petitioner and the respondent, this petitioner being the husband had filed a transfer petition before this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.131 of 2010 Though, this petition was ordered on 20.09.2010 and in pursuance to the above said order, the petition in H.M.O.P.No.169 of 2004 was withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Madurai and transferred to the file of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. It appears that, at present the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and he has to be cross-examined and it shows that the progress of the petition in H.M.O.P.No.430 of 2010, is in the half way i.e in the part heard stage. 3.At this stage, the petitioner has once again come forward with this petition to get the petition in in H.M.O.P.No.169 of 2004 (It was re- numbered as H.M.O.P.No.430 of 2010) withdrawn from the file of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Madurai. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai has openly been coming out that the petition would be decided in favour of the respondent. This is the only ground projected by the petitioner as a ground for withdrawal and transfer of petition in H.M.O.P.No.430 of 2010. Though, this Court is having enormous power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to effect transfer of a case from the file of one Court to another Court, the power of this Court cannot be misused. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.In the instant case on hand, already this Court has specifically passed an order, dated 20.09.2010 in the transfer petition in Tr.C.M.P.No.131 of 2010 and in pursuant to that order the records in H.M.O.P.No.169 of 2004 were withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Madurai and transferred to the file of the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai was also directed by this Court to dispose the same as expeditiously as possible. 6.Accordingly, the case records were transferred and now the case in H.M.O.P.No.169 of 2004, on the file of the Family Court, Madurai has been re-numbered by the learned III Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai as H.M.O.P.No.430 of 2010. It also appears that the petitioner has been examined as P.W.1 and he has to be cross-examined. 7.Under these circumstances, he once again wanted to transfer this petition to the original file of the Family Court, Madurai. 8.The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that originally the learned Judge of the Family Court was related to the petitioner as well as the respondent. Now, the learned Judge has been transferred to some other Court and there may not be any impediment to his successor in office to get on with the enquiry in respect of the divorce petition. But this cannot be permitted and it is seen an abuse of process of Court. The allegations levelled against the learned Subordinate Judge is that he had given out openly that he would decide the matter in favour of the respondent. This cannot be considered to be a valid reason for transfer In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed and it cannot be allowed. 9.For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. The IIIrd Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. 2. The Family Court, Madurai. ps RP/10.11.2011/2p/3c. Tr.C.M.P.(MD).No.176 of 2011 and M.P (MD) No.1 of 2011 20.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/