S LAKSHMANAN Vs. L MAHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/husband has filed two transfer civil miscellaneous petitions praying this Court to withdraw M.C.No.68 of 2008 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Trichirapalli and transfer the same to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court at Erode to be tried along with H.M.O.P.No.43 of2008 pending on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode and to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.327 of 2008 pending on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court at Trichirapalli and to transfer the same to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court at Erode to be tried along H.M.O.P.No. 43 of 2008 respectively.

(2.) THE petitioner in both the petitions is the husband and respondent is the wife of the petitioner herein. THE marriage between the parties has taken place at Tuticorin on 12.12.1994 as per the Hindu rites and Customs as a result of the wed lock, the parties have two children viz., Subbaiah aged 13 years and Sivaram aged 7 years and both of them are presently studying at Tiruchirappali. It transpires that H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode has been filed by the petitioner/husband praying for the relief of dissolution of marriage. THE respondent/wife has filed the maintenance case in M.C.No.68 of 2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, at Trichirapalli and also filed H.M.O.P.No.327 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Trichirapalli under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 praying for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. THE petitioner/husband has alleged that he is working as Junior Engineer in the Corporation of Salem and that his wife/respondent and her brothers are harassing and attacking him and that he has lodged a police complaint at Salem and therefore, he was scared to go to Tiruchirapalli because of the threat by the respondent and her brothers and hence he filed transfer petition seeking to transfer the maintenance case filed by the respondent to the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Erode to be heard along with H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2008.

(3.) FURTHER, the convenience and inconvenience of the parties must be looked into by a Court of law. The aspect of expediency will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, but pivotal consideration for exercise of such power must be to meet the ends of justice.