Madras High Court
Vadivukkarasi vs Unknown on 10 August, 2022
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.230 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.230 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD).No.4070 of 2022
Vadivukkarasi ... Petitioner
v.
Hariharaselvan ... Respondent
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 24
of C.P.C to withdraw the case in H.M.O.P.No.30 of 2021 on the file of
the Sub Court, Sattur, Virudhunagar and transfer the same to the
Family Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vikram
For Respondent : Mr.S.T.Sasidharan Tamilkani
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.230 of 2022
ORDER
This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking
transfer of the case in H.M.O.P.No.30 of 2021 from the file of the Sub
Court, Sattur, Virudhunagar to the file of the Family Court, Chennai.
2. The petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband.
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized on 26.02.2020. Due to some misunderstanding, now, they
are living separately and the respondent has filed H.M.O.P.No.30 of
2021 before the Sub Court, Sattur, Virudhunagar, seeking divorce. The
petitioner is residing at Chennai in her parental house. Since the
petitioner is not having sufficient means to travel and meet out her day-
to-day expenses, she finds it difficult to travel from Chennai to Sattur,
Virudhunagar. Therefore, she filed the present Transfer Civil
Miscellaneous Petition to transfer the case in H.M.O.P.No.30 of 2021
from the file of the Sub Court, Sattur, Virudhunagar, to the file of the
Family Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.230 of 2022
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the respondent is not even providing any maintenance to the petitioner.
The distance between Chennai and Sattur, Virudhunagar is around 550
kms. He further submits that the petitioner is not having sufficient
means to travel and meet out her day-to-day expenses and there is no
one to accompany her. Therefore, she finds it difficult to travel and
appear before the Sub Court, Sattur, Virudhunagar, for each and every
hearing.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amitha Shah vs-
Virendar Lal Shah, reported in (2003)10 SCC 609 has held that the
convenience of the wife and more so of the child must be taken into
account while deciding the petition for transfer. In the case of Rajani
Kishor Paradeshi Vs Kishor Babulal Paradeshi reported in (2005) 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.230 of 2022
SCC 237, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in such type of transfer
petitions, the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the
convenience of the husband.
6. This Court being satisfied with the reasons stated in the
affidavit filed in support of this petition and also taking into account
that the convenience of wife is to be taken into consideration at the
time of considering transfer petitions as held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the judgments cited supra, is inclined to allow the present
petition.
7. In the light of the above, this transfer civil miscellaneous
petition stands allowed. The proceedings in H.M.O.P.No.30 of 2021
pending on the file of the Sub Court, Sattur, Virudhunagar, is
withdrawn and ordered to be transferred to the file of the Family Court,
Chennai. The Sub Court, Sattur, Virudhunagar, is directed to transmit
the entire case records to the Family Court, Chennai, forthwith. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.230 of 2022
learned Judge, Family Court, Chennai, shall dispose of the same as
expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
10.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
gk
To
1. The Family Court,
Chennai.
2. The Sub Court,
Sattur, Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.230 of 2022
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
TR.C.M.P(MD).No.230 of 2022
10.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
