Allowed¶43

A. Sofiya Abuthahir v. J. Abuthahir

Madras HC25 Sept 2025TR CMP/524/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 24 CPC transfer petition; transfer of matrimonial suit; wife's convenience in transfer applications; avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings; restitution of conjugal rights suit O.S. No.30 of 2024 Family Court Salem; divorce suit O.S. No.74 of 2024 Family Court Tiruchirapalli; N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik; Tr.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010; Section 19(iii)(a) Hindu Marriage Act; Madras High Court Tr.C.M.P.No.524 of 2025; A.Sofiya Abuthahir v. J.Abuthahir.

What did the court decide?

The transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed: the suit in O.S. No.74 of 2024 was withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirapalli and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Salem; no costs were imposed and the connected C.M.P. was closed. ¶43

A. Sofiya Abuthahir Vs J. Abuthahir — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether O.S. No.74 of 2024 (the respondent-husband's divorce suit pending before the Family Court, Tiruchirapalli) should be withdrawn and transferred to the Family Court, Salem, having regard to the petitioner-wife's convenience and the pendency of her own restitution-of-conjugal-rights suit at Salem.

¶14

Court's answer

The court found merit in the petitioner-wife's affidavit-based submissions: she resides in Salem with her three children who study there, she is unemployed and living under her parents' shelter, and travelling 190 kms one way to attend each hearing at Tiruchirapalli causes great difficulty and pressure.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Applying the proposition laid down in the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the N.C.V.Aishwarya case (that in matrimonial matters, generally, the wife's convenience must be looked at while considering transfer), the court stated it was inclined to allow the petition, considering the convenience of the wife while transferring the case from one Court to another.

¶37

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner-wife's own suit for restitution of conjugal rights (O.S. No.30 of 2024) is pending before the Family Court, Salem, and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings in various other Courts, the court deemed it necessary to transfer O.S. No.74 of 2024 from the Family Court, Tiruchirapalli to the Family Court, Salem.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (M. Jothiraman, J., 25-09-2025), Tr.C.M.P.No.524 of 2025 with connected C.M.P. No.12999 of 2025: Wife's transfer petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. allowed - husband's divorce suit O.S. No.74 of 2024 withdrawn from the Family Court, Tiruchirapalli and transferred to the Family Court, Salem, where the petitioner-wife's own suit for restitution of conjugal rights (O.S. No.30 of 2024) is pending and where she resides with her three children, being unemployed and dependent on her parents, facing travel of 190 kms one way per hearing. Court applied the Apex Court principle in N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik (MANU/SC/1211/2022 : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627) that in matrimonial transfers the wife's convenience must generally be looked at, weighed a Madurai Bench decision (Tr.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010, 03.03.2011) on Section 19(iii)(a) Hindu Marriage Act, and effected the transfer to avoid multiplicity of proceedings; no costs; connected C.M.P. closed.

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.No.524 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.12999 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.No.524 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.12999 of 2025

¶7

A.Sofiya Abuthahir ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

J.Abuthahir ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. to withdraw and transfer O.S. No.74 of 2024 on the file of Family Judge at Tiruchirapalli to the Family Court, Salem.

¶11

For Petitioner: Mr.A.Rahul

¶12

For Respondent: Mr.A.Selvakumar

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition has been filed to withdraw O.S. No.74 of 2024 from the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirapalli and to transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Salem.

¶15

2.Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

Tr.C.M.P.No.524 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.12999 of 2025

¶19

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/wife filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in O.S. No.30 of 2024 pending on the file of the Family Court, Salem and the respondent/husband filed a suit in O.S. No.74 of 2024 on the file of the

¶20

Family Court, Tiruchirapalli seeking divorce. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would further submit that the petitioner is residing in Salem along with her three children and they are studying in Salem and the petitioner is an un-employed and living under the shelter of her parents. Therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to appear on each and every hearing at Tiruchirapalli and was left with no other choice than to travel 190 kms. one way and appear there at Tiruchirapalli for each hearing. Since it is great difficulty and pressure to travel to Tiruchirapalli, without any support either financially or physically, the case in O.S. No.74 of 2024 may be withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirapalli and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Salem.

¶21

4.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband

¶22

would submit that if the case is transferred to the file of the Family Court, 2/6

¶23

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

¶24

Tr.C.M.P.No.524 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.12999 of 2025

¶25

Salem, serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent/husband.

¶26

5.I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of this petition and I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife.

¶27

6.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:-

¶28

"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.

¶29

10.Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

Tr.C.M.P.No.524 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.12999 of 2025

¶33

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”.

¶34

7.It is also relevant to refer the decision made by the Madurai Bench

¶35

of Madras High Court in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010 dated 03.03.2011, wherein, it has observed as below:-

¶36

''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.''

¶37

8.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, I am inclined to allow this petition.

¶38

4/6

¶39

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

¶40

Tr.C.M.P.No.524 of 2025 and C.M.P. No.12999 of 2025

¶41

9.Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit and since the case

¶42

filed by the petitioner wife is for restitution of conjugal rights in O.S. No.30 of 2024 pending on the file of the Family Court, Salem and in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings in various other Courts, it is necessary to transfer O.S. No.74 of 2024 pending on the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirapalli to the Family Court, Salem.

¶43

10.Accordingly, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. The suit in O.S. No.74 of 2024 is hereby withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Tiruchirapalli and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Salem. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is closed.

25.09.2025

vga

M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.

vga