Allowed¶46

Sowmiya Preetha v. Sarathkumar

Madras HC18 Sept 2025TR CMP/695/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tr.C.M.P.No.695 of 2025; CMP No.16411 of 2025; Madras High Court; Justice M. Jothiraman; 18-09-2025; Section 24 C.P.C.; transfer of matrimonial/divorce proceedings; F.C.O.P.No.75 of 2025; Family Court Namakkal to Family Court Salem; wife's convenience principle in transfer petitions; N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik; MANU/SC/1211/2022; 2022 Live Law (SC) 627; Hindu Marriage Act section 19(iii)(a); TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010 dated 03.03.2011 (Madurai Bench); Subordinate Court Rasipuram suggestion; no costs; connected C.M.P. closed.

What did the court decide?

F.C.O.P.No.75 of 2025 withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Namakkal and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Salem; no costs imposed; connected C.M.P. No.16411 of 2025 closed. ¶46

Sowmiya Preetha Vs Sarathkumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

F.C.O.P.No.75 of 2025 withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Namakkal and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Salem; no costs imposed; connected C.M.P. No.16411 of 2025 closed.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the divorce petition F.C.O.P.No.75 of 2025 filed by the respondent-husband and pending before the Family Court, Namakkal should be withdrawn from that Court and transferred to the Family Court, Salem in view of the petitioner-wife's convenience.

¶24

Court's answer

Having gone through the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the court found merit in the learned counsel for the petitioner's submissions that the petitioner, living with her aged parents and child in Salem and working in a private medical shop, found it very difficult to travel from Salem to Namakkal for each hearing.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Considering the propositions laid down in the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the N.C.V.Aishwarya case (cited supra) and also the court's own observation that the convenience of the wife has to be considered while transferring a case from one Court to another, the court concluded there could be no impediment to allowing the petition as prayed for.

¶42

Key takeaways

The transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed: F.C.O.P.No.75 of 2025 is withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Namakkal and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Salem, with no costs, and the connected C.M.P. is closed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, single judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Jothiraman), order dated 18-09-2025: In Tr.C.M.P.No.695 of 2025, a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 24 of C.P.C., the petitioner-wife (Sowmiya Preetha) sought withdrawal of the divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband (Sarathkumar), pending as F.C.O.P.No.75 of 2025 in the Family Court, Namakkal, and its transfer to the Family Court, Salem, as she resides in Salem with her aged parents and child and works in a private medical shop, making attendance at each Namakkal hearing difficult. The respondent's counsel had submitted that transfer to the Subordinate Court, Rasipuram would benefit both parties. Citing paras 9-10 of N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik (MANU/SC/1211/2022 : 2022 Live Law (SC) 627) - in matrimonial matters the wife's convenience generally governs transfer decisions, and interdependent proceedings raising common questions should be tried together - and referring to the Madurai Bench decision in TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010 dated 03.03.2011 (on how the amended section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act gives the wife jurisdictional preference, though not to wreck vengeance on the husband), the court found merit in the petitioner's submissions and allowed the transfer with no costs, closing the connected CMP No.16411 of 2025.

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.No.695 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

TR CMP No.695 of 2025 and CMP No.16411 of 2025

¶7

Sowmiya Preetha D/o.Ramesh, W/o.Sarathkumar, No.136/59, Court Road, St. Pauls School, Maravaneri, Hasthampatti, Salem 636 007.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Sarathkumar S/o.Balasubramaniam, No.6-166/6/44B, Harrison Colony, Kannoorpatty Village, Pudhuchtram Road, Namakkal Taluk and District.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C.

¶13

to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.75 of 2025 from the file of Family Court, Namakkal

¶14

and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Salem.

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.T.Dhasarathan

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

Tr.C.M.P.No.695 of 2025

¶19

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Jaikumar ORDER

¶20

This petition has been filed to withdraw F.C.O.P.No.75 of 2025 from

¶21

the file of the Family Court, Namakkal and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Salem.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

¶24

that the respondent/husband filed a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Namakkal and the same is pending in F.C.O.P.No.75 of 2025. The petitioner is living with her aged parents along with her child in Salem and she is working in a private medical shop to take care of her parents and her child. In such circumstances, it is very difficult for the petitioner to travel from Salem to Namakkal for attending each and every hearing of the case. Therefore, the case in F.C.O.P.No.75 of 2025 may be withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Namakkal and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Salem.

¶25

Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

respondent/husband would submit that if the case is transferred to the file of

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

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

¶29

Tr.C.M.P.No.695 of 2025

¶30

the Subordinate Court, Rasipuram, it will be beneficial for both the parties.

¶31

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.

¶32

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:-

¶33

"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)

¶34

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”.

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

Tr.C.M.P.No.695 of 2025

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

''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.''

¶41

8. Considering the proposition laid down in the judgment of the

¶42

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.

¶43

Page 4 of 7

¶44

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

¶45

Tr.C.M.P.No.695 of 2025

¶46

Accordingly, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. The case in F.C.O.P.No.75 of 2025 is hereby withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Namakkal and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Salem. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

¶47

18-09-2025

¶48

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

¶49

To 1.The Judge, Family Court, Namakkal.

¶50

2.The Judge, Family Court, Salem.

¶51

Page 5 of 7

¶52

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