LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-57

S.GOLD JAYA Vs. A.JAYAKUMAR

Decided On April 25, 2019
S.Gold Jaya Appellant
V/S
A.JAYAKUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner / wife seeking transfer of D.V.O.P.No.40 of 2018 from the file of the District Court No.II, Kanchipuram, to the file of the Family Court at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and to try along with I.D.O.P.No.27 of 2019, pending before the Family Court at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

(2.) It is stated in the petition that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 27.12.2012. After marriage, both of them lived happily for some time. Later, due to misunderstanding, the respondent herein / husband of the petitioner has filed D.V.O.P.No.40 of 2018 before the District Court No.II at Kanchipuram, seeking divorce with false allegations. Subsequently, the petitioner / wife filed I.D.O.P.No.27 of 2019 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent being a resident of Kanchipuram District has filed the above divorce petition at the District Court No.II, Kanchipuram, whereas the petitioner is residing at Kanyakumari District along with her aged parents and as she is depending upon her aged parents, it is very difficult for her to travel about 663 kms from Kanyakumari to Kanchipuram for attending each and every hearing of the case. It is further stated that since the issue involved in both the cases interrelated to each other, both the cases have to be tried together and therefore, she requested to transfer the petition filed by the respondent / husband in D.V.O.P.No.40 of 2018 to the file of the Family Court at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and to direct the Judge, Family Court at Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, to try D.V.O.P.No.40 of 2018 along with I.D.O.P.No.27 of 2019, which is pending on his file, conduct joint trial and dispose of the same on merits.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the petition.