S. Vijaya Priya v. M. Manivannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI S. Vijaya Priya W/o. Manivannan, D/o. Suresh Kumar, No.340/4, Amar Jothi Garden, First Street, North Gandhi Gramam, Karur 639 004.
..Petitioner(s) Vs.
M. Manivannan S/o. P. Mavilaganam, No.3/144, VGP Layout, Uthandi, Chennai 119.
and also at Flat No.3, Saibaba III Street, Pudupakkam, Chengalpet 603 103.
..Respondent(s) Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to withdraw of HMOP No.144 of 2025 pending on the file of Subordinate Judge of the Chengalpet and transfer the same to the Family Court at Karur.
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr.K.Sankaran For Respondent(s):
Mr.B.Narenkumar
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitioner who is the respondent / wife in H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2025 on the file of Sub Court, Chengalpet has filed this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to transfer the said H.M.O.P., to the Family Court at Karur by stating that she is not in a position to travel to Chengalpet from Karur on the hearing dates.
3. Reiterating the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further add that she has got three year old baby and she finds it difficult to travel from Karur to Chengalpet for all the hearing dates.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent does not have any serious objection in ordering the Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
5. The principles regarding transfer petitions, more specifically in the matters of matrimonial cases are well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases:- "i. In AIR 2000 SC 3512 (1) (Mona Aresh Goel vs. Aresh Satya Goel), when the wife pleaded that she was
unable to bear the traveling expenses and even to travel alone and stay at Bombay, the Supreme Court ordered transfer of proceedings.
ii. In 2000 (10) SCC 304 (Geeta Heera Vs. Harish Chander Heera), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the petitioner's wife has pleaded lack of money, the same has to be considered.
Iii. In Lalita A. Ranga Vs. Ajay Champalal Ranja reported in (2009) 9 SCC 355, wherein the wife, who was having small child and she was finding it difficult to travel from Jaipur to Bombay, and the Hon'ble Apex Court accepting her request ordered the transfer petition in favour of the wife transferring the transfer petition from Family Court at Bandra in Mumbai to the Family Court at Jaipur."
6. On perusal of petition filed in H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2025, it appears that petitioner/husband is the resident of Chengalpet District and the respondent/wife is the resident of Karur District.
7. In consideration of the above said details, the request of the petitioner herein / wife appears to be based on justifiable cause and accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Sequel to this, H.M.O.P.No.144 of 2025 pending on the file of the Sub Court, Chengalpet is withdrawn and transferred to the file of the Family Court at
Karur. The Family Court, Karur on receipt of the records to try and dispose of the matter in accordance with law at the earliest. No Costs. 11-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MAC To
1. The Sub Court, Chengalpet
2. The Family Court, Karur
R.KALAIMATHI, J.
MAC 11-03-2026