Allowed¶39

V. Gowthami v. J. Chiranjeevi

Madras HC11 Sept 2025TR CMP/725/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: transfer of matrimonial proceeding; Section 24 CPC; section 19 Hindu Marriage Act; section 19(iii)(a); restitution of conjugal rights; wife's convenience; withdraw H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024 from Family Court, Salem to Family Court, Coimbatore; N.C.V.Aishwarya vs. A.S.Saravana Karthik MANU/SC/1211/2022; TR.CMP(MD)No.108 of 2010 dated 03.03.2011; Tr.C.M.P.No.725 of 2024; CMP No.15942 of 2024; M.Jothiraman J.; order dated 11-09-2025.

What did the court decide?

H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024 withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Salem and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore; no costs; connected C.M.P. closed. ¶39

V. Gowthami Vs J. Chiranjeevi — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.No.725 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

TR CMP No.725 of 2024 and CMP No.15942 of 2024

¶7

V. Gowthami D/o.Velkumar, D.No.21,Kumaran Illam, 11th Cross Srinivasa Nagar, Uraiyur, Trichy District, now at D.No.70/38, B9 J.G.Garden, Kumaran Nagar Extension, Ganapathy Nagar Pirivu, Ganapathy, Coimbatore District-641006

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

J.Chiranjeevi S/o.V.Jeganathan, D.No.1050-1/N, P.K.N.Complex, Bharathi Nagar, Jageer Ammapalayam, Salem-636005. now at D.No.61, Ezhil Nagar, Nagamalai Adivaram, Salem.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024 pending on the file of the Family Court, Salem and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Vadivel

¶16

Tr.C.M.P.No.725 of 2024

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition has been filed to withdraw H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024 from the file of the Family Court, Salem and transfer the same to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Salem and the same is pending in H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024. The petitioner/wife is living in Coimbatore with her son. In such circumstances, it is very difficult for her travel from Coimbatore to Salem for attending each and every hearing of the case. Therefore, the case in H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024 may be withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Salem and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore.

¶20

I have gone through the affidavit filed in support this petition

¶21

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

¶22

Page 2 of 7

¶23

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

¶24

Tr.C.M.P.No.725 of 2024

¶25

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

¶26

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:-

¶27

"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)

¶28

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”.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

03.03.2011, wherein, it has observed as below:-

¶32

''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.

¶33

Page 3 of 7

¶34

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

¶35

Tr.C.M.P.No.725 of 2024

¶36

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

Considering the proposition laid down in the judgment of the

¶38

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.

¶39

Accordingly, this transfer civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. The case in H.M.O.P.No.110 of 2024 is hereby withdrawn from the file of the Family Court, Salem and transferred to the file of the Family Court, Coimbatore. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.

11-09-2025

nsd Index:Yes/No

Page 4 of 7

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

¶44

Tr.C.M.P.No.725 of 2024

¶45

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