Madras High Court
Mullai Arasi vs Prasannakumar on 9 October, 2025
Tr.C.M.P.No.519 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
TR CMP No.519 of 2025
and C.M.P.No.12949 of 2025
Mullai Arasi ...Petitioner
vs
Prasannakumar ...Respondent
Prayer:Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of
C.P.C. to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.115 of 2025 on the file of the Family
Court, Sivagangai, Sivagangai District and transfer the same to the file
of the Sub Court, Tirupattur District.
For Petitioner(s): Mrs.Mumtaj Surya
For Respondent(s):No Appearance
ORDER
This petition has been filed to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.115 of 2025
on the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai, and transfer the same to the
file of the Sub Court, Tirupattur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 04:17:57 pm )
2. Heard Ms.Mumtaj Surya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the respondent has not chosen to enter appearance before
this Court despite service of notice.
4. It is seen that service of notice has been completed on the
respondent and the name of the respondent is also printed in the cause
list today. The respondent was called absent and set ex parte.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized on 08.09.2019 as per Hindu rites and customs at Sri
Thiruvengadam Udyana Temple, Ariyakudi, Sivagangai District. No
child was born out of the wedlock. The petitioner/wife filed a petition
for dissolution of marriage before the Principal Subordinate Court,
Tirupattur in H.M.O.P.No.62 of 2025. The respondent/husband filed a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 04:17:57 pm )
petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court,
Sivagangai District in H.M.O.P.No.115 of 2025. The petitioner/wife is
residing at Tirupattur Town and District and the distance between
Tirupattur and Sivagangai is about 350 kilometers. As there is no
proper transport facility from Tirupattur, she finds it very difficult to
attend the hearings before the Family Court, Sivagangai. Hence, she
has filed this transfer petition.
6. 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.
7. 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 04:17:57 pm )
"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”.
8. 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 04:17:57 pm )
''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.''
9. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 04:17:57 pm )
10. Accordingly, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is
allowed. The case in H.M.O.P.No.115 of 2025 is hereby withdrawn
from the file of the Family Court, Sivagangai and transferred to the file
of the Subordinate Court, Tirupattur. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is
closed.
09.10.2025
srn
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes;
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1.The Family Court, Sivagangai
2.The Subordinate Court,
Tirupattur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 04:17:57 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
srn
09.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/10/2025 04:17:57 pm )
