Allowed¶27

Pushpalatha v. Radhakrishnan

Madras HC10 Jul 2025TR CMP/778/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Justice P.B. Balaji, Tr.C.M.P.No.778 of 2024, decided 10.07.2025 — Pushpalatha v. Radhakrishnan — transfer of matrimonial case under Section 24 CPC; husband's HMOP No.16 of 2024 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955 (restitution of conjugal rights) moved from Subordinate Court, Gingee, Villupuram to Family Court, Puducherry at wife's instance (minor children, convenience); respondent ex parte; petition allowed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition allowed: HMOP No.16 of 2024 withdrawn from the file of the Subordinate Court, Gingee, Villupuram District and transferred to the Family Court, Puducherry; Subordinate Court, Gingee directed to send the entire records forthwith; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶27

Pushpalatha Vs Radhakrishnan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Tr.C.M.P.No.778 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated :10.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

Tr.C.M.P.No.778 of 2024 and CMP No.17040 of 2024

Pushpalatha

... Petitioner

Radhakrishnan .. Respondent

¶11

Petition filed under Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code to withdraw HMOP No.16 of 2024, on the file of Subordinate Court, Gingee, Villupuram and transfer the same to the Family Court, Puducherry.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Balavijayan For Respondent : No appearance

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The wife, who is the respondent in HMOP No.16 of 2024 pending on the file of Subordinate Court, Gingee, is the revision petitioner herein, seeking transfer of the said proceedings to Family Court, Puducherry.

¶15

Despite service of notice, the respondent has neither chosen to appear

¶16

in person nor through counsel. Therefore, the respondent is called absent and set exparte. Therefore, I have proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the 1/4

¶17

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

¶18

Tr.C.M.P.No.778 of 2024

¶19

petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the transfer petition and contended that the petitioner has filed DVC proceedings before the Magistrate Court at Pondicherry even in the year 2018 and only to harass the petitioner/wife, the respondent/husband has chosen to file HMOP No.16 of 2024 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner has two minor children to take care and therefore, she would find it inconvenient to attend the proceedings before the Sub Court, Gingee,

¶21

I am satisfied with the reasons assigned by the petitioner/wife, seeking

¶22

transfer of the proceedings from the file of Sub Court, Gingee to Family Court, Puducherry.

¶23

Accordingly, Tr.C.M.P is allowed and the proceedings in HMOP No.16 of 2024 pending on the file of Subordinate Court, Gingee, Villupuram District is withdrawn and transferred to Family Court, Puducherry.

¶24

2/4

¶25

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

¶26

Tr.C.M.P.No.778 of 2024

¶27