Allowed¶51

Pavithra v. Velusamy

Madras HC9 Oct 2025TR CMP/151/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of matrimonial suit under Section 24 CPC; wife's convenience as governing criterion in transfer petitions (N.C.V. Aishwarya, Supreme Court); H.M.O.P. for restitution of conjugal rights moved from Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul to Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur; Hindu Marriage Act s.19(iii)(a) preference for the wife noted via quoted Madras HC (Madurai Bench) decision TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010; respondent served but set ex parte; petition allowed without costs; Madras High Court, single Bench, 09.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2024 from the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul and its transfer to the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur, with no costs; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.No.3023 of 2025) closed. ¶51

Pavithra Vs Velusamy — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2024, filed by the respondent-husband for restitution of conjugal rights and pending before the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, should be withdrawn from that Court and transferred to the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur in view of the petitioner-wife's convenience.

¶29

Court's answer

On consideration of the wife's convenience — the petitioner resides at Tiruvallur with her aged parents and finds it very difficult to travel to Dindigul for each hearing of H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2024 — the court found merit in the petitioner's submissions, adopting the position (per N.C.V. Aishwarya and the earlier Madras High Court decision) that the wife's convenience governs transfer of matrimonial causes, and saw no impediment to allowing the transfer petition.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed: H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2024 is withdrawn from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul and transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur, with no costs, and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Jothiraman, J.) allows a wife's Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 CPC, directing that H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2024 — the husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights — be withdrawn from the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul and transferred to the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur. The respondent, though served, did not appear and was set ex parte. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik (MANU/SC/1211/2022 : 2022 Live Law (SC) 627) and on an earlier Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) decision in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010 (03.03.2011) to hold that, in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife must be looked at while considering transfer — the petitioner resides at Tiruvallur with her aged parents and travel to Dindigul for each hearing was difficult. No costs; connected C.M.P. closed.

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.No.151 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.3023 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.10.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶5

Tr.CMP.No.151 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.3023 of 2025

¶6

Pavithra, W/o. Velusamy, No.161, Irattaimalai Srinivasan Street, Putlur Post, Ramapuram, Tiruvallur District. ... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Velusamy, S/o. Ammavasai, Poosaripatti Village, Mallanampatti, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District.

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

Prayer :- Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of the CPC, to withdraw HMOP No.120 of 2024 pending before the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul and transfer the same to the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur,

¶11

Page 1 of 7

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

Tr.C.M.P.No.151 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.3023 of 2025

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Silambuselvan For Respondent : No appearance

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition has been filed to withdraw HMOP No.120 of

¶17

2024 from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, and to

¶18

transfer the same to the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur,

¶19

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶21

submit that the respondent has not chosen to enter appearance before this Court despite service of notice.

¶22

It is seen that service of notice has been completed on the

¶23

respondent and the name of the respondent is also printed in the cause

¶24

list today. The respondent was called absent and set ex parte .

¶25

Page 2 of 7

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Tr.C.M.P.No.151 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.3023 of 2025

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

¶29

submit that the petitioner got married to the respondent on 17.02.2019 at the respondent's house at Pusaripatti, Nilakottai Taluk, Dindigul District as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The respondent / husband filed H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2024 before the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights making allegations and averments against the petitioner. The petitioner is residing in Tiruvallur along with her aged parents and it is very difficult for the petitioner to travel from Tiruvallur to Dindigul for attending each and every hearing of the case. Therefore, the case in H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2024 may be withdrawn from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul and transferred to the file of Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur.

¶30

I have gone through the affidavit filed in support this

¶31

petition and I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

Page 3 of 7

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

Tr.C.M.P.No.151 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.3023 of 2025

¶35

At this juncture, it may be apposite to cite the judgment of

¶36

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:-

¶37

"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”.

¶38

Page 4 of 7

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

Tr.C.M.P.No.151 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.3023 of 2025

¶41

It is also relevant to refer the decision made by the Madurai

¶42

Bench of Madras High Court in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010 dated

¶43

03.03.2011, wherein, it has observed as below:-

¶44

''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.''

¶45

In the light of the proposition laid down in the judgment of

¶46

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.

¶47

Page 5 of 7

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

Tr.C.M.P.No.151 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.3023 of 2025

¶50

Accordingly, this Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is

¶51

allowed. The case in H.M.O.P.No.120 of 2024 is hereby withdrawn from the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul, and transferred to the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruvallur. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶52

09.10.2025

¶53

mtl Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No

¶54

¶55