G LAKSHMI Vs. S MURALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is under Secs. 24 and 151 of the Code of civil Procedure praying for transfer of O. P. No. 819 of 1991 from the file of the principal Family Court at Madras to any other Family Court near Madras City .

(2.) SHORT facts are: the respondent has filed O. P. No. 819 of 1991 against the petitioner for divorce under Secs. l3 (1) (a) and 13 (1) (iii)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner had resisted it. The trial had commenced and examination of the witnesses was over. At that stage, this petition is filed for transfer.

(3.) REGARDING the allegations made against him, remarks were called for from the learned Judge of the Principal Family Court and he had submitted his remarks. His remarks are briefly as follows: On 10. 121993, both parties agreed to submit the '' written arguments''. The respondent Lakshmi did not turn upon 10. 12. 1993. The advocate assisting lakshmi wanted further time to submit the written arguments. It was posted to 14. 12. 1993. The petitioner Murali was ready on 10. 12. 1993 for submission of written arguments. The matter was posted to 14. 12. 1993 as the respondent had not appeared on 10. 12. 1993 to receive copy of the written arguments. Full evidence has been recorded running over several pages. Due to heavy work of family Court, special sittings for contested cases were held. The learned principal Judge, Family Court, Madras is retiring on 31. 12. 1993 and from 1. 1. 1994 there would be no Judge for that court. After 1. 1. 94 this case is not likely to be taken up for months together and it may take about more than one year. Any individual would try to take advantage of a vacuum and Lakshmi tries to take fully advantage of the vacuum. It is totally false to say that he prompted her husband on occasions. On 10. 12. 1993, Lakshmi was absent. So, there is no occasion for her to request time to submit written arguments. The allegation that she was threatened on 10. 12. 1993 is totally false. The allegation that the memo was thrown out on the face of the party is made only to prejudice the mind of the Judge of the High Court, if possible. Unfounded and scandalous allegations have been made against the Judge of the Principal family Court.