LAWS(MAD)-2001-6-129

MRS. GEETHA Vs. T. SEERALAN

Decided On June 25, 2001
Mrs. Geetha Appellant
V/S
T. Seeralan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife is the petitioner who wants transfer of the matrimonial O.P. from the Sub -Judge, Tindivanam to the Sub -Court, Periakulam. The petitioner and the respondent were married on 22.5.1996 at Thethanur village as per Hindu Law. A child was born to them, but the married life has not been pleasant. According to the petitioner, the respondent and his parents have been insulting and harassing her. The respondent is also not interested in maintaining her and her child. The respondent has now filed H.M.O.P. No. 75/1999 before the Sub -Judge -Tindivanam. She claims that it is very difficult for her to go all the way from Chinnamanur with her child to Tindivanam which is 1,100 kms. away, for every hearing. According to her, from 25.4.2000, she has been attending the hearing with her parents. According to her, the respondent is threatening to kill her. According to her, she is very worried about the safety of her child and, therefore, wants transfer.

(2.) A counter has been filed by the respondent denying all the averments made by the petitioner in her affidavit in support of the Tr. C.M.P. He has also stated therein that the matter is no pending only before a Sub -Court and, therefore, the petitioner need not be present for every hearing. The allegations of threat of violence made by her were stoutly denied. The respondent had also expressed his difficulty to leave the Headquarters abruptly and, therefore, prays that the transfer should not be ordered.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner's only intention is to harass him and there is no justification for transfer. It was also stated by the learned Counsel that it will be difficult for the respondent to leave the Headquarters abruptly since his presence is necessary to meet urgent calls. It was specifically stated in the counter that the petitioner had not attended the hearing for three or four occasions. He has also denied the allegations made about the respondent threatening the petitioner.