✦ Madras High Court

J.JAMEEMA v. S.Hameed Shamsudeen

V LAKSHMINARAYANAN2 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed

Key paragraphs

  • Para 88. Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06.11.2024 ssiIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non speaking orderNeutral Citation Case: Yes/NoTo1.The V Additional Family Court, Chennai. 2. The Family Court Judge, Ramanathapuram.4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr. C.M.P.No.227 of 2024V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.ssiTr.C.M.P.No.227 of…

Judgment

Tr. C.M.P.No.227 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06.11.2024CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANTr. C.M.P.No.227 of 2024andC.M.P.No.4441 of 2024J.JAMEEMA... PetitionerversusS.Hameed Shamsudeen... RespondentPrayer: Petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to withdraw O.S.No.336 of 2023 pending on the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Ramanathapuram. For Petitioner: Mr.R.RanganathanFor Respondent: Mr.J.Abdul Hadi1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr. C.M.P.No.227 of 2024ORDERThe petitioner is the wife. She married the respondent on 21.04.2013. From the wedlock, there are two children. The son aged about 8 years and the daughter aged about 5 years. Due to the disputes and differences the parties are separated.

2.

The husband has initiated O.S.No.336 of 2023 on the file of the V Additional Family Court at Chennai seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife, who is a permanent resident of Ramanathapuram District pleads that, she is not able to travel from Ramanathapuram to Chennai to attend the hearings. Hence, the transfer application.

3.

Notice was ordered in the transfer application and Mr.J.Abdul Hadi, learned counsel has entered appearance for the respondent. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr. C.M.P.No.227 of 20244. Mr. Abdul Hadi, learned counsel pleads that, the husband is auditory processing disorder and therefore, it will be difficult for him to travel from Chennai to Ramanathapuram. He states that the wife is able bodied and therefore, she can travel from Ramanathapuram to Chennai. Hence he pleads for dismissal of the transfer application.

5.

I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.

6.

The wife is taking care of an infant, who is aged about 5 years. It will be difficult for a women to travel from Ramanathapuram to Chennai along with the child. The disorder that the respondent is suffering from, i.e., auditory and not of movement.

7.

Taking into consideration the convenience of the wife, O.S.No.336 of 2023 is withdrawn from the file of the V Additional Family Court, Chennai and is transferred to the file of the Family Court, Ramanathapuram. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr. C.M.P.No.227 of 2024 The husband need not appear for every hearing. He can present himself for essential hearings. During the time of evidence, the learned Judge will follow the requirements of Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act and record evidence.

Operative part

8.

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06.11.2024 ssiIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non speaking orderNeutral Citation Case: Yes/NoTo1.The V Additional Family Court, Chennai. 2. The Family Court Judge, Ramanathapuram.4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tr. C.M.P.No.227 of 2024V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.ssiTr.C.M.P.No.227 of 202406.11.2024 5/5

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 119.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Madras High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments