N. PREIMALA Vs. K. RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the respondent herein. The respondent had filed O.P. No. 188 of 1996 on the file of the First Additional Family Court, Chennai for dissolution of 5 marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The Transfer C.M.P. No. 14264 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that she is residing at Kumibakonam and every time, she has to trouble her old parents to accompany her to attend the Court, by this the petitioner is put to lot of inconvenience. Further, she is not in a position to attend the Court regularly. The respondent on the other hand will not be prejudiced in attending the Sub -Court, Kumbakonam and hence the O.P. can be transferred to sub -Court, Kunibakonam. The respondent herein filed a counter stating that the O.P. is ready for disposal and at this stage, if the O.P. is transferred to Sub -Court, Kumbakonam, it will further delay the disposal of the matter. The respondent is unemployed and seeking for an employment at Madras. There is absolutely no sufficient cause for the transfer of O.P. from the Additional Family Court Chennai to Sub -Court, Kumbakonam.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent reiterated what is stated in the affidavit and in the counter. 1 carefully considered the contentions of both the counsels. The transfer is being sought for only to avoid inconvenience to the petitioner. If the petitioner has to travel from Kumbakonam to Chennai, she has to undertake a night journey. in order to avoid any stay at Chennai. If she wants to avoid night journey, she has to undertake day time journey by which she will be forced to stay at Chennai. Either way, she may require an assistance. It is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner is being accompanied by either of her parents. When the parents are aged, it is not proper for the petitioner to trouble them.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent represented that his client is willing to pay the travelling expenses to the petitioner and her companion, and also the expenditure incurred at Chennai. In fact, in the Counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that the respondent has offered to pay a sum of Rs. 250/ - by way of maintenance per month and Rs. 150/ - by way of conveyance for every hearing. The petitioner did not accept the offer. This only reveals the intention of the respondent that at any cost, the petitioner should be dragged to Chennai under the guise of litigation.