Kavitha v. Anandhan @ Anandhakumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN Tr.CMP.No.1331 of 2024 and Kavitha ... Petitioner

Versus

Aanandhan @ Anandhakumar ... Respondent Prayer:- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the CPC, to withdraw the H.M.O.P.No.148 of 2024 pending on the file of the Family Court, Pudukkottai, and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner :

M/s.S.Manjula For Respondent :

Mr.E.Maharajan **********

O R D E R

The petitioner-wife has filed the present transfer petition seeking withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.148 of 2024 from the file of the Family Court, Pudukkottai, and transfer of the same to the file of the Family Court, Chennai.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

1/6

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner / wife submits that H.M.O.P.No.148 of 2024, pending before the Family Court, Pudukkottai, has been filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner is residing in Chennai and has to spend considerable amounts of money to appear before the Court at Pudukkottai, along with her daughter, who is studying in +2 standard. At present, there is no one to take care of her child during her absence.

4. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support this petition and find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner / wife.

5. In view of the above and also considering the consent given by the other side, there is no impediment to allowing this petition as prayed for.

6. At this juncture, it may be apposite to cite the judgment of the 2/6

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 socioeconomic 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".

7.

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 3/6

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.'' 8.

In the light of the proposition laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V.Aishwarya case cited supra and also in the light of 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.

9.Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. The case in H.M.O.P.No.148 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court, 4/6

Pudukkottai, is withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Chennai. Considering the facts there shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 22.09.2025 nvi Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No To

1. The Family Court, Pudukkottai,

2. The Family Court, Chennai.

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

nvi 5/6

22.09.2025 6/6