Sharmila @ Sharmila Sherly Jesolite v. S. Ruben

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.04.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. PALANIVELUTr.C.M.P.No.22 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Sharmila @ Sharmila Sherly Jesolite ... PetitionerVsS. Ruben ... RespondentTransfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 24 ofC.P.C. to withdraw I.D.O.P.No.192 of 2008 pending on the file of thePrincipal District Judge, Chengleput and transfer the same to FamilyCourt, Chennai For Petitioner : Mr.Prakash Goklaney For Respondent : Mr. R.Shanmugasundaram Senior Counsel for Mr. N.ChandrasekaranO R D E R The petitioner is wife of the respondent. Their marriagewas solemnised on 9.7.2008 in Chennai. Due to misunderstandingsbetween them, the respondent filed I.D.O.P.No.192 of 2008 on the fileof the Principal District Judge, Chengleput under the provisions ofDivorce Act, 1869, for dissolution of marriage and the same ispending.2. In the affidavit, filed by the petitioner, it is alleged thatthe petitioner is resident of Avadi, she finds it very difficult togo to Chengleput to attend the Court; that if it is transferred toFamily Court at Chennai, her relatives and a couple of Advocatefriends at Chennai are prepared to help her; that it is also easierfor her to travel to Chennai than to Chengleput; that according toconvenience also transfer has to be made and that she is constantlythreatened and it is not safe for her to go to Chengleput and thereis no one else to accompany here.3. In the counter affidavit, the above said allegations have beencontroverted and it is pleaded that she has well equipped https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ facilities to travel to Avadi where she is living; that she, withsole intention to harass and humiliate this respondent has filed theapplication; that he is an advocate actively practicing in HighCourt, Madras and City Civil Court in the same campus and most of theadvocates are known to him; that the purpose of filing this transferpetition is only to humiliate him in the presence of his colleagueadvocates; that he does not want his personal matter to become apublic issue in front of the advocates and colleagues known to him;that transfer to Family Court at Chennai is an embarrassment to himand that no prejudice will be caused to both of them if the case istransferred to District Court at Thiruvallur for which he has totravel nearly 85 kms.4. Mr.R. Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for therespondent would submit that the respondent is being a practicinglawyer in City Civil Court and High Court, Madras, feels embarrassingto have matrimonial matter before the Family Court at Chennai, inthe midst of his colleagues. It is his further contention that ifthe petitioner feels it unsafe to go to Chengleput, any other placethan Chennai may also be considered. He also stresses that the saidapprehension is not genuine.5. Per contra, Mr.Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel for thepetitioner would state that the Family Court proceedings are beingtaken up in-camera and they are normally conducted inside the Judges'chambers, and there would be no question of embarrassment for therespondent and that Chennai is more convenient to both parties tohave the enquiry.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon adecision reported in CDJ 2001 SC 2469 [Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjayand another] in which the wife sought for transfer of a matrimonialcase from Bhojpur to Delhi and the case was pending in the Court inAra. After hearing both sides, the Apex Court directed transfer ofcase to the District Judge, Delhi. 7. Mr.R. Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for therespondent would site a decision of Orissa High Court in I (2008) DMC708 [Sujata Mohanty v. Radra Charan Mohanty] wherein the High Courtrefuses to heed to the request of the wife, since no ground was madeout except saying that she being lady it is not safe for her totravel alone, however, directing the husband to pay expenses for toand fro travel of petitioner alongwith companion in train.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to twodecisions of this Court in CDJ 2007 MHC 1138 [Vijayalakshmi @Sindhuja v. R. Suresh Kumar] and CDJ 2008 MHC 5173 [Sylvia Jabakumariv. R.Anandaraj]where this Court has allowed the prayer of the wife inthe matter of transfer of matrimonial cases as per her convenience. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. In (2006)9 SCC 197 [Anindita Das v. Srijit Das] the Apex Courtafter referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court on thispoint and concluded that it must be seen that at one stage theSupreme Court was showing leniency to ladies, since then it has beenfound that a large number of transfer petitions are filed by womentaking advantage of the leniency shown by the Supreme Court, thatexcept for stating that her health is not good, no particulars aregiven. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attendthe Court on a particular date, she can always apply for exemptionand her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merits andthat there is no ground for transfer has been made out. The SupremeCourt also directed the husband to pay all travel and stay expensesof the petitioner and her companion for each and every hearing whenshe is required to attend the Court at Delhi.10. Referring to the earlier decisions, the Supreme Courtobserved thus:-"2. In support of this petition, a largenumber of authorities have been cited, namely,Reena Bahri, Leena Makherjee v. Rabi ShankarMukherjee [(2002) 10 SCC 480]; Ram Gualam Panditv. Umesh J. Prasad [(2002)10 SCC 551 ] andRajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh [(2003) 11 SCC726]. These authorities are all based on the factsof their respective cases. The do not lay downany particular law which operates as a precedent."11. Following the decisions rendered in Anindita Das case (Supra)it is held that the request for transfer need not be considered asper the convenience of the wife on the ground that she got relativesand Advocate friends in Chennai. This Court is also considering theembarrassing situation where the respondent would be in a position tohave his matrimonial issues dealt with in Family Court in Chennaiwhere he is practicing as an advocate, in the midst of his advocatefriends, colleagues and clients. It is no doubt true that theproceedings will be held in camera,even then coming to the Court andattending to the proceedings would certainly be an embarrassment tohim in the considered view of this Court.12. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I.D.O.P.192of 2008 pending on the file of the Principal District Court,Chengleput, is withdrawn and transferred to the Court PrincipalDistrict Court, Tiruvellore, for disposal, according to law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. With the above direction the C.R.P is disposed of. No costs.Connected M.P. is closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.ggsTo1. The Principal District Judge, Chengleput.2. The Principal District Judge, Tiruvellore. + 1 CC To Mrs.R.Mahalakshmi, Advocate SR NO.18959 Order in: Tr.C.M.P.No.22 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 MBS {CO}TP/12.6.2009.