Madras High Court
Sathya @ Mangayarkarasi vs Suriyaprakash on 9 October, 2025
Tr.C.M.P.No.919 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
TR CMP No.919 of 2025
and
CMP No.20944 of 2025
Sathya @ Mangayarkarasi ...Petitioner
Vs
Suriyaprakash ...Respondent
Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of
C.P.C. to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2025 filed by the respondent
pending on the file of the Sub Court, Uthankarai, Krishnagiri District
and transfer the same to the Sub Court, Palacode, Dharmapuri District.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Rameshkumar
For Respondent(s):Mr.V.Saravanan
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:08 pm )
Tr.C.M.P.No.919 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2025
pending on the file of the Sub Court, Uthankarai, Krishnagiri District
and to transfer the same to the file of the Sub Court, Palacode,
Dharmapuri District.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife would
submit that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was
solemnized on 21.01.2024 at Balathandayuthapani Temple, Krishnagiri
District. The respondent/husband has filed H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2025 on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Uthangari, Krishnagiri District
seeking a divorce on the ground of cruelty. He would further submit
that the petitioner is presently residing with her aged parents at
Palacode and is dependent on them for livelihood and support.
Therefore, it would be very difficult for her to travel from Palacode to
Uthangarai, covering a distance of about 160 kilometres (to and fro), to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:08 pm )
attend each and every hearing. Hence, this transfer petition has been
filed.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
husband would submit that the respondent is suffering from 40%
disability and if the petition is allowed, it would cause serious prejudice
to the respondent. Hence, he objected to allow this transfer petition.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:08 pm )
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:08 pm )
the husband. There must be a justifiable cause to select the
jurisdiction of the Court where she resides.''
7. In 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 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.18 of 2025 is hereby withdrawn
from the file of the Subordinate Court, Uthankarai, Krishnagiri District
and transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Palacode,
Dharmapuri District. Considering the fact that the respondent/husband
is physically challenged person with 40% disability, his personal
appearance of the respondent-husband before the Court below is
dispensed with for the present. However, as and when his presence is
required by the Court below, the respondent shall appear in person. No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:08 pm )
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 Subordinate Court,
Uthankarai, Krishnagiri District
2.The Subordinate Court,
Palacode, Dharmapuri
District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:08 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN
srn
09.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2025 02:14:08 pm )
