V. MAYANDI CHETTIAR Vs. PALA UMIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This case is filed to transfer Calendar case No. 100 of 1992 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate. Devakottai, in which the petitioner is one of the accused along with her mother and son, to be tried in any of the Judicial Magistrate at Madurai for the reason that he is an aged man with defective eye vision not in a position to travel from Madurai to Devakottai and along with each and every hearing of the above case if it goes on during the trial in Devakottai. This is perhaps the only ground urged for the relief of transfer.

(2.) A counter was filed on behalf of the respondent objecting for the relief being asked for on the ground that the petitioner is a lady, already deserted by her husband, who is the son of the petitioner herein and for the reason of committing the offence of bigamy, with the aid and authority of the petitioner and his wife. She has lodged a complaint under Sec. 206, Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate at Devakottai which was taken on file in C.C. 110/92, and accordingly, the trial is yet to commence.

(3.) The respondent would contend that the present transfer application is out of scheme worked out by her husband namely, the son of the petitioner, who has not only committed the offence of bigamy along with the petitioner and his wife, but also not paying any maintenance. Therefore, a case filed by her before the same Magistrate claiming maintenance in M.C. 20/ 92 which also ended in her favour. Like wise H.M.O.P. No. 69/92 filed by the husband of the respondent herein before a court at Karur for the restitution of conjugal rights was also transferred by the order of this Court to Devakottai to be tried by the same Court, which is pending before the Court at Devakottai. Under the said circumstances, it was contended that the alleged age and the defective eye vision of the petitioner cannot be a genuine ground for granting the relief of transfer.