Vanmathi v. Elumalai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN TR CMP No.638 of 2025 and CMP No.15434 of 2025 Vanmathi

...Petitioner

Vs Elumalai

...Respondent

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. to withdraw and transfer the divorce petition pending in H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court at Tindivanam and transfer the same to Family Court, Chennai. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.J.P.Rajesh For Respondent(s):No appearance

ORDER

This petition has been filed to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2020 from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Chennai.

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 03.07.2017 at Mayilam Sri Arulmigu Balasubramani Swami Temple as per Hindu rites and customs. The respondent/husband filed a petition for divorce before the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam and the same is pending in H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2020. The petitioner/wife is working as an Accountant in a private concern and it would be very difficult for her to travel alone from Chennai to Tindivanam for every hearing. Therefore, this transfer petition has been filed. 3.

Though the respondent entered appearance through a counsel and his name being duly printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent/husband today. 4.

I have gone through the affidavit filed in support this

petition and I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.

At this juncture, it may be apposite to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik (MANU/SC/1211/2022 : 2022 Live Law (SC) 627) held at paras 9 and 10, which reads as under:- "9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.

(emphasis supplied) 10.Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and

when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions".

6.

It is also relevant to refer the decision made by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010 dated 03.03.2011, wherein, it has observed as below:- ''18.It is true that section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been amended by insertion of proviso of (iii)(a) to section 19. Of Course, this amended section 19(iii)(a) gives special preference to the wife to file a petition or defending the case of the husband before the Court within whose jurisdiction she resides. The intention of the legislator is to safe-guard the interest and rights of the women, who are being subjected to harassment and cruelty. But this special preference conferred under section 19 (iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act shall not be used to wreck vengeance on the husband. There must be a justifiable cause to select the jurisdiction of the Court where she resides.''

7.

Considering the proposition laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya case cited supra and also considering the observation made by this Court, wherein, it has been held that convenience of the wife has to be considered, while

transferring the case from one Court to another, there can be no impediment for allowing this petition as prayed for.

8. Accordingly, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. The case in H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2020 is hereby withdrawn from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Chennai. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

09.10.2025 Srn Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes;

To 1.The Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam 2.The Family Court, Chennai M.JOTHIRAMAN J.

srn 09.10.2025