Decided on August 21,2019

Christina Manoharan Appellant
Kinsley Jabakumar Respondents


T. Raja, j. - (1.) The Transfer C.M.P. has been filed to transfer the I.D.O.P. No. 101 of 2019 pending on the file of the Family Court at Trichy to the file of the Family Court at Chennai.
(2.) Ms. Jayashree Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 27.06.2013 at C.S.I. All Saints Church, Puthur, Trichy - 17 as per Christians customs and rites. After the marriage, the respondent, who was an Engineer, took the petitioner to U.S.A., where he was working and they were blessed with a female child, namely Amy, on 13.05.2014 in the U.S.A. Due to some misunderstanding cropped up between them, they came down to India in July 2015 and since then the petitioner has been living with her parents. Consequently, when the bitterness widened, the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent before the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's Special Complaint Cell and the respondent was enquired by Trichy Fort All Women Police Station. During March 2016, the petitioner has filed a second complaint against the respondent and his parents before the said Cell. As the respondent's mother was working in Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), a complaint was also sent to respondent's mother's office. Thereafter, on 24.01.2017, the petitioner filed third complaint against the respondent, his parents and sister alleging dowry allegations before the office of the Commissioner of Police, Trichy. In view of the subsequent developments in the matrimonial life, the respondent filed I.D.O.P. No. 101 of 2019 denying all the allegations and to pass a decree for divorce dissolving the marriage held on 27.06.2013 before the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner wife has come to this Court seeking transfer of the I.D.O.P. No. 101 of 2019 from the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli to the file of the Family Court, Chennai on the ground that she has been residing in Chennai along with her child. Moreover, the petitioner has been employed recently as a Teacher in Anita Methodist Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Vepery, Chennai.
(3.) Mr. S. Udayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent may be permitted to have the temporary custody of the child for three days. In this regard, the respondent has filed an affidavit stating that on the earlier occasions when the matter was listed in the Chamber on 16.07.2019 and 05.08.2019, he was permitted to spend some time with his daughter aged 4 1/2 years and she was very comfortable with him and he was also very happy to see his daughter after a long time. It is further stated in the affidavit that as the petitioner refused to accept the re-union, he has planned to reach U.S.A. on 08.09.2019. Since he intends to spend some more time with his daughter, he sought permission to have the custody of the child for three days namely, 24.08.2019/25.08.2019, 31.08.2019 and 07.09.2019. The affidavit further states that his family members are also very anxious to see his child, hence, after showing the child to them, he has undertaken to return the child to the petitioner on 25.08.2019 evening. It is further stated that since his Periamma Mary, aged about 65 years is also very anxious to see his child, he sought permission to take his child to Trichy. Unless permission is granted for the aforementioned reasons, he may not be able to enjoy those days with his family members.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.