S RAJALAKSHMI Vs. D SATYAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 2693 of 1981, on the file of the Sixth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, for recovery of certain jewels and also for the past and future maintenance. THE petitioner herein is the wife of the first respondent herein. THE first respondent has also filed O.P. No. 285 of 1981, on the file of the Sixth Additional City Civil Judge, Madras for a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. C.M.P. No. 914 of 1981, was filed by the first respondent herein before the Principal City Civil Judge, Madras, praying for the transfer of the suit pending before the Sixth Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, to the file of the Sixth Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, to be tried along with O.P. No. 285 of 1981. THE Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, on the facts and circumstances of this case, ordered the transfer as prayed for. It is against this order, the petitioner who is the wife of the first respondent herein, has filed this civil revision petition.

(2.) MR. D. C. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, has no power to effect such a transfer. According to the learned counsel, the Sixth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, is not subordinate to the Court of the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, and as such the transfer cannot be effected. Further, the learned counsel submits that as per the Madras City Civil Court Act, there is no power to effect such a transfer by the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. It has been further stated that the Original Petition was filed in the Court which has the matrimonial jurisdiction and as such the transfer of that petition to the file of the Sixth Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, to be tried along with the suit filed by the petitioner herein cannot be entertained.

(3.) IN these circumstances, I do not find any question of jurisdiction as such involved in this revision for me to admit the same. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed.