S R GAYATHRI Vs. V SRIVATSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as wife and husband. The marriage between the spouses had taken place on 29.1.2012. After the marriage, they left India. Because of difference of opinion, the wife returned back to India and she filed H.M.O.P.No.506 of 2015 on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore on 12.3.2015 for divorce on the ground of cruelty. After receipt of the summons, the husband filed H.M.O.P.No.2447 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights on 3.6.2015.

(2.) The wife filed Transfer C.M.P.No.580 of 2015 seeking withdrawal of proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.2447 of 2015 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai and transfer the same to the Family Court at Coimbatore for joint trial with the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.506 of 2015. As a counter blast, the husband filed Transfer C.M.P.No.29 of 2016 seeking to withdraw proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.506 of 2015 pending on the file of the Family Court at Coimbatore and transfer the same to the Principal Family Court at Chennai for joint trial with the proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.2447 of 2015 pending on the file of the Principal Family Court at Chennai.

(3.) This Court heard the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the husband. The learned counsel for husband has raised 4 points for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.506 of 2015. Learned counsel would submit that as the video conference facility is available in the Family Court at Chennai and since the husband is working in a Multi-national Company, now put up at Los Angels, California, USA, he appointed his father as a power of attorney, the interaction can only be done through video conference and as such he sought for transfer on that ground. The second ground raised is that the father of the husband was appointed as a power of attorney of the husband and the power of attorney is unable to attend the Court at Coimbatore due to the medical ground viz., he underwent angioplasty and he is advised not to travel for long distances. The third ground raised is that the husband is ready to pay the reasonable costs, daily expenses and also travelling expenses in 3 tier A/C from Coimbatore to Chennai and back. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the wife, learned counsel for the husband raised another point that since the wife has raised a false statement, she is not entitled to the relief claimed in the transfer application filed by her. Hence, he prayed for transfer of H.M.O.P.No.506 of 2015 to the Principal Family Court at Chennai.