B. Yamini @ Keerthana vs P.Damodaran
2025 Latest Caselaw 7969 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7969 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 October, 2025

Madras High Court

B. Yamini @ Keerthana vs P.Damodaran on 22 October, 2025

                                                                  Tr.CMP.No.947 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21499 of 2025

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                        DATED: 22.10.2025
                                                                  CORAM:
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
                                                    Tr.CMP.No.947 of 2025
                                                             and
                                                    C.M.P.No.21499 of 2025

                    B. Yamini @ Keerthana                                                   ... Petitioner / Respondent

                                                                  Versus

                    P.Damodaran                                                             ... Respondent / Petitioner

                    Prayer:- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the
                    CPC, to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.293 of 2024 on the file of Subordinate Court,
                    Poonamallee and to transfer the same to the file of Sub-Ordinate Court at
                    Maduranthakam to be heard and decided on merits.
                                       For Petitioner        :        Mr.N.Senthilkumar
                                       For Respondent         :       M/s.R.Raji

                                                            ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner / wife submits that the marriage

between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 17.03.2019.

Due to dowry harassment, the petitioner initiated proceedings in D.V.C.No.7

of 2024 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, before

the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Maduranthakam. She also filed M.C.No.3 of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm ) Tr.CMP.No.947 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21499 of 2025

2024 before the same Court, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/-.

Thereafter, the respondent / husband filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.293 of

2024 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, seeking a decree for

restitution of conjugal rights. Subsequently, the petitioner / wife filed a

petition in O.P.No.1935 of 2025 before the learned VI Additional Family

Court, Chennai, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner / wife

is presently residing with her parents at Maduranthakam and is entirely

dependent on her family for financial support. Considering the grave

inconvenience and hardship caused to her in traveling all the way from

Maduranthakam to Poonamallee for each hearing, and in view of the pending

related proceedings at Madurantham, it would be extremely difficult and

unsafe for the petitioner, being a women, to undertake such a long journey

for every hearing. Attending the proceedings at Poonamallee would cause

her immense hardship, mental agony and inconvenience.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that

there is no serious objection in allowing the present petition and seeks to

dispense with the appearance of the respondent for the present.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm ) Tr.CMP.No.947 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21499 of 2025

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

I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

4. 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”.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 12:56:51 pm ) Tr.CMP.No.947 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.21499 of 2025

5. 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 the husband. There must be a justifiable cause to select the jurisdiction of the Court where she resides.''

6. 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.