2009 (4) TMI 1015

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....affidavit, filed by the petitioner, it is alleged that the petitioner is resident of Avadi, she finds it very difficult to go to Chengleput to attend the Court; that if it is transferred to Family Court at Chennai, her relatives and a couple of Advocate friends at Chennai are prepared to help her; that it is also easier for her to travel to Chennai than to Chengleput; that according to convenience also transfer has to be made and that she is constantly threatened and it is not safe for her to go to Chengleput and there is no one else to accompany here. 3. In the counter affidavit, the above said allegations have been controverted and it is pleaded that she has well equipped facilities to travel to Avadi where she is living; that she, wit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....venient to both parties to have the enquiry. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision reported in CDJ 2001 SC 2469 [Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another] in which the wife sought for transfer of a matrimonial case from Bhojpur to Delhi and the case was pending in the Court in Ara. After hearing both sides, the Apex Court directed transfer of case to the District Judge, Delhi. 7. Mr.R. Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent would site a decision of Orissa High Court in I (2008) DMC 708 [Sujata Mohanty v. Radra Charan Mohanty] wherein the High Court refuses to heed to the request of the wife, since no ground was made out except saying that she being lady it is not safe for her to tra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ge number of authorities have been cited, namely, Reena Bahri, Leena Makherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee [(2002) 10 SCC 480]; Ram Gualam Pandit v. Umesh J. Prasad [(2002)10 SCC 551 ] and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh [(2003) 11 SCC 726]. These authorities are all based on the facts of their respective cases. The do not lay down any 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 as per the convenience of the wife on the ground that she got relatives and Advocate friends in Chennai. This Court is also considering the embarrassing situation where the respondent would be in a position to have his matrimonial i....