B. Karthikeyani vs S.Harsath
2025 Latest Caselaw 7497 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 7497 Mad
Judgement Date : 26 September, 2025

Madras High Court

B. Karthikeyani vs S.Harsath on 26 September, 2025

                                                                                             TR CMP No.54 of 2025



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED: 26-09-2025

                                                               CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

                                                    TR CMP No.54 of 2025
                                                           and
                                                    CMP No.1127 of 2025


                     B. Karthikeyani
                     D/o.S.Baskar @ S. Balashanmugam,
                     14 Bye Pass Road, Opp to State Bank,
                     Pallipalayam, Namakkal 638 006.

                                                                                                  Petitioner(s)

                                                                    Vs

                     S.Harsath
                     S/o.P.Sundarraj,
                     D.No.53, Savithri Nagar, Chetty Street,
                     Coimbatore 641 001.

                                                                                                Respondent(s)


                                  Transfer Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 CPC to

                     withdraw H.M.O.P.No.659 of 2024 from the file of the Family Court,

                     Coimbatore and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Erode.


                                      For Petitioner(s):      Mr.V.Balamurugan

                                      For Respondent(s): Ms.J.Swetha

                     1/9


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 01:18:32 pm )
                                                                                            TR CMP No.54 of 2025

                                                             for Mr.K.Govi Ganesan

                                                              ORDER

This petition has been filed to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.659 of 2024

from the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore and transfer the same to the

file of the Family Court, Erode.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner/wife filed a complaint in D.V.A.No.9 of 2024

and the same is pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court, Erode

and the respondent/husband also entered appearance to defend the case.

He would further submit that the petitioner/wife is residing in

Pallipalayam, Namakkal District, which is nearer to Erode. Further, he

would submit that it would be very difficult for her to travel all the way

from Namakkal to Coimbatore for attending each and every hearing of

the case, as she is taking care of her aged parents. Therefore, the case in

H.M.O.P.No.659 of 2024 may be withdrawn from the file of the Family

Court, Coimbatore and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Erode.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 01:18:32 pm )

would submit that the petitioner/wife was set ex parte in H.M.O.P.No.659

of 2024 and if the case is transferred from Coimbatore to Karur, it would

cause serious prejudice to the respondent/husband. Therefore, he prays

for dismissal of this petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/wife, in response to the

aforesaid contention, would submit that this Court vide order dated

29.01.2025 has granted an order of interim stay. However, the

petitioner/wife was set ex parte in H.M.O.P.No.659 of 2024 by the Court

below on 25.04.2025 without considering the order of interim stay

granted by this Court. He further prays to transfer the interlocutory

application filed by the petitioner/wife along with the main

H.M.O.P.No.659 of 2024.

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/wife. It is also admitted that the petitioner/wife had initiated the

complaint in D.V.A.No.9 of 2025 before the Additional Mahila Court,

Erode, in which, the respondent/husband also entered appearance.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 01:18:32 pm )

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:-

"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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 01:18:32 pm )

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.''

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.

Accordingly, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed.

The case in H.M.O.P.No.659 of 2024 is hereby withdrawn from the file

of the Family Court, Coimbatore and transferred to the file of the Family

Court, Erode. The personal appearance of the respondent/husband before

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 01:18:32 pm )

the Family Court, Erode, is dispensed with. The respondent/husband shall

appear before the Family Court, Erode, as and when required. No costs.

Connected C.M.P. is closed.

26-09-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes; Neutral Citation:Yes/No nsd

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/09/2025 01:18:32 pm )

1.The Judge, Family Court, Coimbatore.

2.The Judge, Family Court, Erode.