S BALAJI Vs. ANANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Transfer CMP has been filed by the husband against the wife and the minor child praying to withdraw and transfer the maintenance case filed by the respondent wife in MC.No.13 of 1999 pending on the file of the Court of District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli to the file of the Court of II Additional Family Court, Chennai.

(2.) ON a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the above petition and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the absence of either the respondents or their counsel on record, what comes to be known is that the case instituted by the husband which is pending in Chennai is HMOP No. 1116 of 1997 is for dissolution of the marriage.MADRAS

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would cite yet another decision of this court (between the same parties) in a petition of transfer filed by the respondent-wife, herein against the petitioner-husband wherein the respondent had asked for a joint trial to be held transferring HMOP No.1 116 of 1997 pending on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Chennai to be heard along with MC No.91 of 1997. Even here, the learned Judge citing the earlier remark offered in the other case cited above stating that the Judge had passed the order noting that the petitioner-wife therein in spite of having been served with notice, had not taken steps to appear before that court and, therefore, the petition in Tr.CMP No.16514 of 1997 came to be allowed and whereas, in the petition filed by the respondent-wife, the learned Judge had passed orders dismissing the petition filed by the wife to transfer the other case filed by the husband to Neyveli. THErefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge in the said petition also cannot hold good for a decision to be arrived at in this transfer petition since it has been decided only based on the first case cited above which cannot be dismissed on account of non-appearance of the party.