R USHA Vs. R VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the Wife against her husband as the respondent praying to withdraw H.M.O.P. No. 20 of 1997 pending on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Panrutti and to transfer the same to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram to be tried along with H.M.O.P. No. 9 of 1998.

(2.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the above Transfer Civil Miscellaneous petition, the petitioner wife would submit that she is residing with her brother at Kanchipuram since she is parentless; that the respondent treated her cruelly meting out physical and mental torture to her as a result of which from August, 1997, she was forced to live separately, that she had also given birth to a male child on 3.9.1996 which is with her; that the respondent forged her signature and collected Rs. 1 lakh from the Bank; that she has filed H.M.O.P. No. 9 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram in which the respondent entered appearance and now the case is posted on 7.10.1998; that the respondent has also filed H.M.O.P. No. 20 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Panrutti and the said case has also been posted on 10.7.1998; that the respondent is cruel and is threatening her with his henchmen and since she is facing danger to attend to the Court at Panrutti besides having child, who is two years old to be taken care of, she would pray to withdraw H.M.O.P. No. 20 of 1997 pending on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge from its file and transfer the same to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram so as to be tried along with H.M.O.P. No. 9 of 1998 filed by her for dissolution of marriage in the said Court.

(3.) AS against the allegations of the petitioner for seeking transfer of the H.M.O.P. No. 20 of 1997 filed by the husband on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Panrutti for restitution of conjugal rights to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram so as to be tried along with H.M.O.P. No. 9 of 1998 is concerned there is nothing placed on record with allegations contra or with rebuttal of the petitioner's allegations and in spite of sufficient notice to the respondent no appearance is made on his part much less represented by his counsel as a result of which this Court is left with no option but to believe the allegations of the petitioner to be true. Moreover, being a lady, keeping a tender child with her, to travel all the distance from Kanchipuram to Panrutti without a male assistance is hazardous and risky since after the Court proceedings are over, at times she will have to travel during nights. To avoid all these, it is desirable only to transfer the petition instituted by the husband at Panrutti for restitution of conjugal rights to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram so as to be tried along with H.M.O.P. No. 9 of 1998.