Vandhana vs Logeswaran
2025 Latest Caselaw 7964 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7964 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 October, 2025

Madras High Court

Vandhana vs Logeswaran on 22 October, 2025

                                                              Tr.CMP.No.970 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21840 of 2025



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                     DATED: 22.10.2025
                                                              CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
                                                 Tr.CMP.No.970 of 2025
                                                          and
                                                 C.M.P.No.21840 of 2025

                    Vandhana                                                             ... Petitioner / Respondent

                                                               Versus

                    Logeswaran                                                           ... Respondent / Petitioner

                    Prayer:- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the
                    CPC, to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.305 of 2025 on the file of the Sub-Court,
                    Dindigul, and transfer the same to Sub-Court at Poonamallee.

                                    For Petitioner        :        Mr.K.Rahul
                                    For Respondent        :        No appearance


                                                              ORDER

The wife has filed the present transfer petition seeking to transfer

H.M.O.P.No.305 of 2025, pending on the file of the learned Sub-Court,

Dindigul, to the file of the learned Sub-Court, Poonamallee.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm ) Tr.CMP.No.970 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21840 of 2025

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner / wife submits that the

marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on

21.04.2014. The respondent / husband filed H.M.O.P.No.305 of 2025 before

the Sub-Court, Dindigul, seeking a decree of divorce. The petitioner is

presently residing with her aged parents at Avadi, and it is difficult for her to

attend the hearings at the Sub-Court, Dindigul. The distance between Avadi

and Dindigul is approximately 425 Kilometers, and it is extremely difficult

for her to travel such a long distance alone for every hearing.

3. Despite service of notice in the above transfer petition, the

respondent has neither chosen to appear in person nor through counsel. The

name of the respondent is also printed in the cause list. Hence, the

respondent was called absent and set ex-parte.

4. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support this petition and

I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm ) Tr.CMP.No.970 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21840 of 2025

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 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:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm ) Tr.CMP.No.970 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21840 of 2025

''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.''

7. 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.