SUDHA Vs. VAIDYANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above Transfer C.M.P. the petitioner seeks for a transfer of H.M.O.P. No. 4 of 2000 on the file of the Sub -Court, Chidambaram to the Court of Additional District Judge, Karaikal, for trial.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she was married to the respondent on .11.1997 at Karaikal. She was presented by her father with 22 sovereigns of gold, silver vessels worth about Rs. 12,000/ -, stainless steel worth about Rs. 3,000/ - among other things. The marriage was also performed on a grand scale by spending about 2.5 lakhs. Thereafter, they were living together at Chidambaram, where the respondent was employed - Ever since the marriage, the respondent was not treating the petitioner properly and she was kept like a slave and even her parents were not allowed to meet her. Her entire salary was taken by the respondent and she was not given anything even for her personal expenses. She had to resign the job at Chidambaram and got herself employed as a staff nurse at Karaikal since her living with the respondent was impossible. She filed M.O.P. No. 3 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikal for judicial separation; A counter was filed by the respondent and on mediation the respondent returned most of the articles given at the time of the marriage and still some more materials were due to be delivered. It was also agreed that as living together has become impossible, a petition for divorce by mutual consent may be filed. As such, she did not press her petition for judicial separation and by order dated 14.12.1999, M.O.P. No. 3 of 1999 was dismissed as not pressed. After securing an order of dismissal as mentioned above, the respondent filed H.M.O.P. No. 4 of 2000 before the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent has absolutely no intention of taking her as his wife and the petition has been filed only to harass the petitioner. The respondent also failed to provide maintenance to the minor child and as such the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance of the minor child. The petitioner would further submit that her life will be in jeopardy if she was to attend the hearings at Sub -Court, Chidambaram. The respondent has manhandled the petitioner's father and he had been treating the petitioner very badly. Her father was a Post Master with big family and with a marriageable daughter and he cannot accompany her to Chidambaram. The petitioner's father also apprehends danger to his life. She also has a minor child who was only 19 months old. Therefore, there will not be any difficulty for the respondent to attend the Court at Karaikal if the proceedings are transferred to Karaikal.

(3.) IN the counter filed by the respondent in support of the petition to vacate the order of stay, the allegations regarding misunderstandings between the parties were denied. He did not want any amount towards the marriage. As she was working at Chidambaram, the respondent came to Chidambaram and both were living together. It was false to state that the petitioner was treated as a slave. There was also no truth in the contention that the entire salary was taken by him and the petitioner was not given any amount for her personal expenses. It was the petitioner's father who was poisoning the mind of the petitioner and made all arrangements for a job at Karaikal. It is true that M.O.P. No. 3 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner for judicial separation. He had opposed the petition and he requested the petitioner to return to the marriage house and she had informed that she would contemplate reconciliation only if all the goods brought by her from her house were returned to her. Therefore, all the articles were returned to the petitioner. It was agreed that both should live jointly and peacefully. Only under those circumstances, H.M.O.P. No. 3 of 1999 was withdrawn and there was no talk of divorce at all. He was ready and willing to take back his wife. Subsequent proceedings filed by the petitioner for maintenance was only a counter -blast to H.M.O.P. No. 4 of 2000 filed by him. He was, if tending to the criminal case filed against him at Karaikal for even hearing and spending a great deal of money towards travelling and personal expenses Therefore, it will not be possible for him to defend the O.P. at Karaikal, The father of the petitioner was a very, influential person and in fact the responded! had been manhandled on an earlier occasion. Me was only an electrician in Annamalai University. He does not have the resources to fight the litigation.